Chennai Court August 1946 Judgments
V. Venkatasami Chetty Vs. D. Panchakshara Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad414; (1947)1MLJ226
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for decision in these appeals is whether the remission of the entire amount due except Rs. 1,500 granted by the agreement evidenced by Ex. D-3 is invalid and cannot be claimed under Section 63 of the Contract Act unless the balance of the amount payable had also been paid and the contract itself had been wiped out. These two appeals arise out of two suits on two promissory notes. The plaintiff in both is the same. The defendants are different. The promissory notes were executed for money due under prior dealings. Interest was payable under the promissory notes. The defendants' case is that on the 16th June, 1942, accounts were taken and it was agreed then that a certain amount should be paid and that the balance payable was only Rs. 1,500 and that it should be paid on 30th June, 1942. The question was whether the amount cited as having been remitted in Ex. D-3 was not validly remitted and whether the plaintiff was entitled to eschew that remission ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Narayanan Nambudiripad and ors. Vs. Varnasi Alias Maravancheri Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad76; (1946)2MLJ393
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, with reference to the decisions in Marayanan Mambudiri v. Sundara Aiyar (1935) 43 L.W.584 and Marayanan Mambudiri v. The Chalapuram Bank, Ltd. Appeal No. 103 of 1936 it is within the power of the karnavan of Nambudiri illom to impose on the illom liability for debts incurred in running a kuri or chit, in the absence of any family custom. Before dealing with this reference we wish to make it clear at the outset that we are not concerned with the question whether for necessity a karnavan can borrow from a chit fund, nor are we concerned with a case in which it can be shown that the running of chits is an established institution in a particular family justified by the custom of that family.2. The facts so far as they are necessary in the present case are that the first and second defendants and their elder brother Narayanan Nambudiripad who is now dead and who was at that time the karnavan of the illo...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Suryarao Bahadur Garu of of Pithapura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad339; (1947)1MLJ87
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Coconada on an application by the decree-holders in O.S. No. 26 of 1928 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Cocanada or the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,466-6-0 which the Maharajah of Pithapuram obtained in rateable distribution of the assets of the Zamindar of Polavaram against whom three decrees had been obtained (1) by the Mullapudi people in O.S. No. 92 of 1920, Sub-Court, Coconada, (2) by the Mattapalli people in O.S. No. 26 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Coconada and (3) by the Maharajah of Pithapuram in O.S. No. 4 of 1924 on the file of the Agency Court, Bhadrachalam. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 26 of 1928 certain sale proceeds were realised and they were transferred to the Sub-Court, Coconada, which distributed those proceeds to the three decree-holders mentioned above. The Maharajah of Pithapuram got Rs. 1,466-6-0 in this di...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ333
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This case can be disposed of on two short grounds. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 103(b)(ii) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months. That section enacts, that any person adjudged insolvent who with fraudulent intent to diminish the sum to be divided amongst his creditors has concealed any part of his property of what kind soever shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. The petitioner was adjudged insolvent in 1932. He was then running a school called the Sri Ram Motor School. An allocation of Rs. 10 was fixed to be paid by him to the Official Assignee and it is admitted that he has been regularly paying the allocation. The Sri Ram Motor School was sold away with its good will by the petitioner and the proceeds of its sale were duly handed over by him to the Official Assignee. The petitioner appears to be a skilled technician. He seems to have devised a good g...
Tag this Judgment!K. Swaminatha Iyer and anr. Vs. K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad213; (1946)2MLJ307
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These connected appeals, though arising out of two suits tried separately by different Subordinate Judges, are aimed at securing the same relief to the appellants-plaintiffs, viz., a declaration that a Court-sale held in execution of a decree obtained against their father is not binding on their shares in the property sold. The plaintiffs and their father are admittedly members of a joint Hindu family. The father and his brother since deceased borrowed Rs. 2,500 from the Madras People's Bank, Ltd., (in liquidation), executing a promissory note dated 19th January, 1938. The bank sued for recovery of the amount due and obtained a decree against the executants. The plaintiffs were not made parties to the suit. In execution of the decree the house now in question which admittedly belongs to the joint family Was attached on 21st June, 1939, and on the following day the Court struck off the execution proceedings ordering however, that the attachment was to subsist for ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal Vs. Subbalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad319; (1947)1MLJ64
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in the second appeal and two questions arise for consideration. The first is whether, in the absence of any proof that Ponnammal, the step-mother of Srinivasan, who was the last maleholder of the estate, was allotted the lands absolutely or only for her life, the District Judge of South Arcot was right in decreeing the plaintiffs' claim on the basis that after Ponnammal's death, which took place in 1941, the lands reverted to the family of Srinivasan.2. Mr. M.S. Venkatarama Aiyar, the learned advocate for the appellant, was right in his contention that the rule enunciated by the Privy Council in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewakram that in the case of grants to a woman, there is a presumption (based on the notions prevalent in the community to which the grantor and the grantee belong) that the estate conferred upon her is only the limited estate of a Hindu widow or a Hindu daughter and not an absolute estate, has been abrogated b...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadri Venkataswami Vs. Mandi Tata Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad162; (1946)2MLJ361
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 20th August, 1937, Govinda Reddi, the father of the respondents, executed a promissory note in favour of one Sankariah, who on the 1st July, 1940, indorsed it to the appellant. On the 16th August,. 1940, the appellant filed a suit to enforce the payment of the promissory note. Govinda Reddi had died in the meantime and the respondents were made the second and third defendants as his legal representatives. The first defendant was the brother of Govinda Reddi. The indorsement of the promissory note in favour of the appellant admittedly only operated to transfer the instrument and not the debt in respect of which it was made. Therefore the appellant was not in a position to maintain the suit against the brother of the maker, but only against the maker's legal representatives. The trial Court (the Court of the District Munsiff of Nellore) dismissed the suit in its entirety on the ground that it was not maintainable against any of the defendants beca...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad195; (1946)2MLJ435
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The conviction of the petitioners rests entirely on the evidence of the seizure of one bale of piece goods from the house in which they were living. It would appear that the seal of a railway wagon was found broken and tampered with on 4th July, 1945, and when the contents were verified two bags of areca nuts and a bale of piece goods were missing. So far as the areca nuts are concerned both the Courts below have absolved the petitioners and it is not necessary to go into that part of the case. The piece goods bale is said to have been recovered from the petitioners' house on 7th July, 1945 and it is alleged that the seizure was made on information given by the first accused. The evidence relating to the seizure of the articles is somewhat thin. It consists of the evidence of the Head 'Constable P.W. 10 and P.W. 10's case is that he arrested the petitioners on the railway platform and on information obtained from them he went to the house of the petitioners and fou...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Kadirvelsami Naicker by His Authorised Agent, C. Chockalingam Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad160; (1946)2MLJ371
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the zamindar of Yerasackanaickanoor. He brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to recover from the respondents the amount of Rs. 10,637-6-3, which he claimed to be due to him by way of rent under a lease dated the 16th December, 1930. The lease was granted by the plaintiff's prede-cessor-in-title for the purpose of cardamom cultivation. It was for a period of fifteen years and covered 475 acres of forest land, all of which fell within the boundaries of the zamindary. The defendants took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court. They claimed that they were entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in respect of the whole area covered by the lease and consequently the Revenue Court alone had jurisdiction. The plaintiff maintained that he was entitled to sue in the Civil Court because cardamom cultivation was not agriculture within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act...
Tag this Judgment!Gutti Nukamma Vs. Matcha Bansayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ303
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Coconada dismissing an application for execution on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation. On the 30th March, 1935, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs. 29,281-5-8; but the amount was subsequently scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act to Rs. 4,368-1-0. On the 23rd March, 1939, the plaintiff obtained a final decree against the judgment-debtors, based on the scaling down. The suit had been filed in forma pauperis and under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was directed to pay the amount of the Court-fee, Rs. 1,222-7-0, to the Government. Rule 13 says that all matters arising between Government and a party to the suit under Rule 1 o, Rule 11 or Rule 12 of Order XXXIII shall be deemed to be questions arising between the parties to the suit within the meaning of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »