Chennai Court August 1949 Judgments
Krishnammal Vs. R. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ647
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1.This is an appeal by the respondent in O.P. No. 142 of 1948, against an order of Subba Rao, J., granting a succession certificate to the petitioner in the original petition in respect of the Government securities, more particularly specified in the schedule attached to the petition.2. The securities originally stood registered in the name of one Subramania Ayyar. He died on the nth December, 1911, leaving behind him his father, Anantarama Iyer, his widow Ammani Ammal, and two daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal. The respondent in. this appeal, who was the petitioner in the original petition is Lakshmi Ammal, the daughter of Rajammal. On the 26th September, 1912, Anantarama Iyer executed a deed of settlement whereunder he provided that after his death his daughter-in-law, Ammani Ammal should enjoy the securities for her life and after her death they should be possessed and enjoyed in equal half shares by his grand-daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal for life. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Kottan Vs. K.V. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad632
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The point for determination in this revision petition is whether an endorsee of a simple on demand promissory note will be entitled to a decree against an endorser without proof of presentment for payment to the maker and without notice of dishonour to the endorser.2. The suit was on a promissory note for Rs. 240 executed on 12-8-1944 by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2. On 14-4-1944, defendant 2 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff for consideration. The suit was filed on 13-2-1947. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants failed to pay the amount on several oral demands and the registered notice sent to the defendants by the plaintiff on 10-2-1946 proved of no avail and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit. Defendant 1 was ex parte. Defendant 2 pleaded that the moneys paid under the promissory note belonged to the plaintiff and that he was a name lender to the promissory note and that at the request of the plaintiff it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mangapathi Naidu Vs. M.K. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad762
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit on a mortgage (Ex. P-1) dated 5th June 1909, was decreed by the trial Court and dismissed by the lower appellate Court has preferred this second appeal. The only point argued before me is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The suit was instituted on 27th July 1944 to enforce the mortgage (EX. P-1). There are two endorsements of payments on the mortgage bond, EX. P-1 (a) dated 30th July 1920 and EX. P-1 (b) dated 29th July 1932. It is common ground that Ex. P-1 (a) is a valid acknowledgment of liability under Ex. P-1 and is & fresh starting point of limitation. Exhibit P-1 (b) is in these terms: 'The amount of Rs. 100 paid and endorsed (sellu vaithadu) by us five persons.'Then follow the names and signatures of the debtors. The appellant contends that the Tamil expression ' (sellu vaithadu)' implies that there is an outstanding balance still due under the mortgage and that the endorsement, Ex. P-1 (b), therefore, operates as an ack...
Tag this Judgment!Nadiammai Achi and anr. Vs. Mariappa thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad625
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Court of the District Judge of West Tanjore scaling down the decree under Section 19 of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938. For appreciating the facts and the contentious of the parties the following genealogy may usefully be referred to. KAYAROHANA | _______________________________________________ | | Ramalinga Sabapathy | | ________________________ Kasinatha Thevar. | | Kayarohana Subrahmanyam | Mariappa Thevar (Respondent).The branches of Ramalinga and Sabapathi had become divided in 1926. Butt in the partition certain immovables and cash outstandings were left undivided and they were in the management of Ramalinga. Ramalinga and his sons became divided between 1934 and 1936. Inspite of the division Ramalinga continued to be in management of the assets not divided. During the lifetime of Ramalinga he was assessed to income-tax in regard to the income of the property left undivided and after his death his son Kayarohana was also asse...
Tag this Judgment!Jwarmal Shivanath Malu Vs. Haji Ibrahim Kassam Uplitwala, Firm by Mukt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad768
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant, a merchant of Tasgaon in Bombay Province. The plaintiff in the suit does business in Calicut and ordered a quantity of 'New Chillies Chatni beat, dried, thin red' after approval by sample from the defendant. The contract was admittedly on8 known as C. I. F. and F. O. R. Tasgaon. On the arrival of chillies in Calicut, the plaintiff according to his plaint allegations, found on examination that the chillies were of inferior quality and not according to sample. He had a survey made by the Chamber of Commerce of Calicut whose report, he said, would bear out his allegations. After notification to the defendant, who made no response, the chillies were sold at the risk of the defendant. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2900-4-0 by a hundi to the defendant before the goods were despatched. The suit was filed in the District Munsif's Court of Calicut to recover a loss of about Rs. 1500/-. The District Munsif of Calicut held that he had no jurisdiction as th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rangathaman Vs. Sankarlal Davey and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad139
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal, namely, the Court of Small Causes, have ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had after the commencement of the Madras Act (XV [15] of 1946) sublet the premises to one Krishnan Nair without the written consent of the land-lord, the respondent before us. The petitioner, the tenant, seeks to have the order of the Appellate Tribunal quashed by a writ of certiorari on two grounds.2. The first ground is that the application for eviction on which the order against him was made was itself liable to be rejected in limine under Section 10 of the Act because a prior application made by the landlord was dismissed on 3rd November 1948 in the following circumstances. The landlord filed an application for eviction on substantially the same grounds as those alleged in the later application; but, apparently, having regard to the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court which held that due notice terminating...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.S. Kumarappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad216
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a single Judge in second appeal. The appellant was the respondent in C. M. S. A. No. 31 of 1946 which was board by Satyanarayana Rao J. The appeal was allowed and on the motion of the counsel who appeared for the appellant herein for leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against his judgment leave was refused. As against the refusal, this appeal is now filed. Notice of this appeal was ordered to the respondent and to the President of the Madras Advocates Association probably, for the reason that this involves a matter of interest to the legal profession and the litigant public. An objection is taken that no appeal lies against the refusal of leave by the second appellate Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that he is entitled to file an appeal as this is an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge under Clause 15, Letters Patent and the o...
Tag this Judgment!Pedapati Mangayya Vs. Garapati Achayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad224
Horwill, J.1. On 27th March 1934 the appellant mortgaged a number of items of property to the transferor of respondent 1 for Rs. 3000. On 18th September 1940 he executed three sale deeds in respect of certain items of the mortgaged property in favour of respondents 2 to 4, clearly intending that by these sales the whole mortgage debt should be paid off and the vendees left to enjoy the property free of mortgage, Unfortunately, respondents 2 to 4 did not pay the money, although it is alleged that some years later the money was deposited in Court. On an application under the Agriculturists' Relief Act, the debt was scaled down in O. P. No. 406 of 1943 to Rs. 3100-14-6. The mortgagee thereupon sought to bring the hypotheca to sale for the mortgage debt; but the appellant in E. A. No. 217 of 1946, asked that the Court in equity should sell first the items of the hypotheca that had been sold to respondents 2 to 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, in a very brief order, dismissed the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Laxmi Sundaramma Vs. Sadhu Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad274
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an unfortunate dispute between a wife and her husband, appellant and respondent respectively in this second appeal. The spouses have been living apart since 1936 owing to misunderstandings and their three minors daughters have been living with the mother since then. The wife sued her husband and obtained a decree for the maintenance of herself and her children. The eldest daughter though a minor, attained marriageable age in 1942 and was got married by the mother, the father having taken no interest in the affair. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the wife against her husband for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000 stated to have been spent by her in connection with the marriage of the daughter. The suit was decreed by the District Munsif. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that though the wife might have spent Rs. 1,000 in connection with the marriage, she could not recover it from her husband, he being under no legal...
Tag this Judgment!Pati Banda Bharadrajulu Vs. Pisipati Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ744
Horwill, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the decree of the Principal District Munsiff of Guntur dismissing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent and awarding to the defendant compensatory costs.2. On the merits there is little that can be said. It is alleged that a reading of the judgment indicates that the' learned District Munsiff approached the matter that had to be decided with some prejudice against the plaintiff. It is, of course, clear that the District Munsiff held a very strong opinion that the conduct of the plaintiff had been reprehensible; but that was an opinion that he was entitled to form after seeing the plaintiff and the defendant in the box, examining the evidence, and hearing the arguments.3. Compensatory costs should be awarded with some caution; but a revisional Court is reluctant to interfere with the exercise of any discretion by the lower Court regarding costs, unless it has proceeded on some perverse, or at any rate, some wrong considerations,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »