Chennai Court September 1949 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.A. Munusami Reddi and ors. Vs. C.N. Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad764
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The appellants in this case are defendants 2 to 13, who are the transferees from the registered pattadar, defendant 1 and who are aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, who reversed the decision of the District Munsif of Poonamallee. The material facts that led up to the present litigation may be briefly stated. Plaintiff 1 who was a receiver appointed in O. S. No. 440 of 1917 on the file of this Court and who got himself registered as a landholder brought the holding of defendant 1 to sale for arrears of rent accrued due for Fasli 1348 under Section 112, Estates Land Act, and he himself purchased the property in auction for Rs. 177 and took symbolical possession thereof, Plaintiff 2 is a person claiming under plaintiff 1 as a lessee of the suit holding. Defendant 1 is the widow of the vendor of the holding to the two branches of the defendants' families, defendants 2 and 6 being the managers of the respective families. As def...
Chunduru Krishnayya Vs. Kolluri Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad206
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case two interesting questions of law have been argued before me at some length, viz., (1) whether a promissory note executed by a lawful guardian of a minor for a debt binding on his estate can itself be sued upon or only the debt evidenced thereby can be sued for, and (2) whether an endorsee of such a promissory note can without any assignment of the debt sue on the promissory note for the recovery of the debt evidenced thereby.2. The Courts below dismissed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. The plaintiff has appealed. The ground of the dismissal of the suit by the Courts below is that although by means of an amendment of the original plaint the plaintiff has raised the case of relief on the basis of the debt quite apart from and in addition to the promissory note basis, the endorsement of the promissory note does not per se carry with it the right to recover without an assignment of the debt itself which there is not. It is common ground befor...
Sayyaparaju Surayya Vs. Koduri Kondamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad239
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing her suit under Section 77, Registration Act. Plaintiff's husband presented to the Sub-Registrar of Kothapeta on 8th January 1944 a document purporting to be a sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 29th September 1943. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document as the defendant denied its execution. There was an appeal against that decision of the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar who agreed with the Sub-Registrar and confirmed his decision. His order is dated 15th November 1944. A suit was thereafter instituted by the plaintiff on 13th December 1944 under Section 77, Registration Act for enforcing registration of the document. The document is Ex. P-2 in the case. The document consists of six sheets of paper of which five sheets are stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs. 82 8-0. The sixth and the last sheet is a brown paper and there is the thumb impres...
Sri Muthangi Butchi Ramayya Vs. Gurrala Venkata Subbarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad214
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellant before me was defendant 6 in the original suit which was laid for recovery of a one-tenth share out of a two-third share of a whole property, the other one-third of which defendant 6 had become owner by virtue of a court auction purchase of the interest of one Krishnarao, a member of the family of the plaintiff and the other defendants to the present suit, by defendant 6 himself as his execution creditor. After the purchase, defendant 6 in fact filed his own suit for partition and recovery of his one-third share in the right of Krishnarao and before the final decree in that suit was actually passed, defendants 1 to 5 in the present suit, of whom defendant 2 is the father of the plaintiff in the present suit, applied to buy up the share of the present defendant 6 who was the plaintiff in the former suit, under the provision of Section 4, Partition Act. Defendants 1 to 5 in fact were given the chance to buy up the share in accordance with the provision of ...
Sayyaparaju Surayya Vs. Nekkanti Anandayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad525; (1950)IIMLJ313
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The suit was laid on the basis that there was an alienation by a limited estate holder, in favour of the plaintiff which was quite valid and binding upon the defendant, who happened to be reversioner to the estate. There was, in fact, a small cause suit on a prior occasion by this very plaintiff against this very defendant, who at the time occupied the position of a lessee, for recovery of rent. During the time the small cause suit was pending there was a reference to arbitration, not through Court but outside. The award that resulted from the arbitration declared that the present defendant was a reversioner to the estate of the last male-holder and that the plaintiff had no title to the property, which had been the subject-matter of the alienation by the widow of the last male holder. After the award, curiously enough there was still a decree passed ...
In Re: T. Ethirajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad145
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The accused has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 4 (l) (a), Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 50.2. The accused is a carpenter and in his carpentry shop a jar containing two gallons of varnish was found. This varnish contains denatured spirit and therefore it comes within the definition of liquor in the Act. The lower Court finds that the liquid is not drinkable and is not fit for consumption. The question is whether the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 4 (l) (a) of the Act. The object of the Act as the preamble shows, is to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating liquor. It is not suggested that the varnish is intended for drink or can be used for intoxicating purposes. Being a carpenter, the possession of varnish was for a legitimate use. P. W. 1, the Prohibition Officer, says that if it is varnish he would not have seized it. The finding of the lower Court is that it is varnish. The Governme...
Bhagavathula Venkatachalapathi Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad211
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner who applied for a succession certificate seeks to revise an order by the learned District Judge, Guntur, directing him to pay stamp duty on the aggregate amount of debts and securities for which the certificate was applied rejecting his contention that he should pay stamp duty under Schedule 1, Article 12, Court-fees Act on the individual debts. Schedule 1, Article 12 prescribes a stamp of 2 per cent. 'on the amount or value or any debt or security specified in the certificate', if less than Rs. 5000, and 3 per cent. on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended.2 There is no Madras decision on this point. My attention has been drawn to a ruling by the learned Master of the High Court in 1937 in which following the Bench decision of the Luck-now High Court in Pirthwi Nath Bhargawa v. Triloknath Bhargawa ; he took the view that stamp duty was payable on the individual debts and securities and not on the aggregate. It i...
T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai and anr. Vs. the Board of Commissioners of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad473; (1950)2MLJ511
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 84 (3), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II [2] of 1927), as amended by Madras Act X [10] of 1946, against the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the appellants' petition under Section 84 (2) of the Act.2. The facts relating to this matter have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother which he is about to deliver find which I had the advantage of perusing, and therefore, need not be set out in great detail. One Venkataswami Servai executed on 18-3-1920, a deed of gift (EX. R-2) declaring that he had already endowed nineteen acres, ninety-eight cents of nanja land to Alagarswami temple devasthanam and that the temple was already under construction. He also expressed in that document his intention to have the deity Alagarswami installed in the building which was then under construction and to have kumbabhishekam performed after completion of the building. Under this deed he appointed two trustees, b...
Bhagavathula Venkatachalapathi Vs. the Province of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ632
Mack, J.1. The petitioner who applied for a succession certificate seeks to revise an order by the learned District Judge, Guntur, directing him to pay stamp duty on the aggregate amount of debts and securities for which the certificate was applied rejecting his contention that he should pay stamp duty under Schedule I, Article 12 of the Court-Fees Act on the individual debts. Schedule I, Article 12 prescribes a stamp of 2 per cent, 'on the amount or value of any debt or security specified in the certificate ', if less than Rs. 5,000, and 3 per cent, on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended.2. There is no Madras decision on this point. My attention has been drawn to a ruling by the learned Master of the High Court in 1937 in which following the Bench decision of the Lucknow High Court in Pirthwi Nath Bhargava v. Estate of late Triloknath Bhargava I.L.R.(1934)Luck. 196, he took the view that stamp duty was payable on the individual debts and se...
Srinivasa Mudaliar Vs. Abraham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad824
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing the petition of the petitioner herein praying that he may be impleaded as an appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947, which arose out of O. S. No. 206 of 1943. The petitioner is the legatee under a will executed by the appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947. The appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947 had filed a suit O. S. No. 206 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvadi, for dissolution of partnership and for accounts against one Abrahim Pillai and eight others. In the said suit the present petitioner's predecessor-in-interest who was plaintiff claimed that she was a partner in a rice mill along with defendant l in the suit, and that the partnership was started with the plaintiff and defendant 1 as partners they being entitled each to a moiety of the business, each having contributed a sum of as much as Rs. 1052/- and odd. Defendant 1 paid the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »