Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad853; (1953)1MLJ804
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. After the lengthy arguments I haveheard in this case the principles that to mymind appear to emerge for consideration andapplication in this case are these. (1) A writtenstatement pleading a set-off, whether legal orequitable, must bear court-fee whether the setoff is tantamount to an extinguishment of theplaint claim or to a partial reduction of theplaint claim; (2) where the written statementon its allegations refers to the payments whichwill have the effect of either extinguishing orreducing the suit claim as payments which inlaw must be held to be in the nature of 'payments to the plaintiff himself,' the defendantis not under an obligation to pay any court feeon that amount although when he fails to provethe legal effect of the payments in question tobe that of payments to the plaintiff himself, theplea of the credit claimed by the defendant onthe foot of payments may have to fail. Thislatter principle is really a corollary to thelarger principle applicable t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad307; (1953)IIMLJ459
Mack, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing my learned brother's judgment and merely wish to add a few words in further support of our view that Act 18 of 1937 does not take away the old Hindu law right of maintenance a widow had against her husband's joint family. There are observations at page 711 of the 11th edition of Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage edited by Sri N. Chandrasekhara Ayyar, which suggest a contrary view on the ground that Hindu law allowed widows maintenance only because of their exclusion from inheritance and from a share on partition. At the time of this commentary, a widow was still excluded from succession to agricultural land and it was observed that, therefore, a widow was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding her right under the Act to a share in the non-agricultural part of the family estate. The Act has since, by Madras Act 26 of 1947, been extended in favour of widows so as to include agricultural land. We are, with respect to the learned commentator, una...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad840; (1953)1MLJ823
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal raises a question under Section 51, Negotiable Instruments Act. The first defendant is the appellant. On 23-10-1943 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 2500 (Ex. P-1) in favour of the fourth defendant Illuri Yallamanda Reddi and his three sons, defendants 5 and 6 and one Koti Reddi since deceased. The plaintiff sued as endorsee of this promissory note, to recover the balance of the amount due thereunder. The appellant resisted the suit on various grounds. But the only defence that is now material is that there was no proper endorsement or negotiation of the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that in consequence, no action is maintainable thereon This contention is based on the fact that on 17-4-1944 the 4th defendant alone made the endorsement (Ex. P-3) and delivered the promissory note to the plaintiff and that the other payees Koti Reddi and defendants 5 and 6 endorsed (Ex. P-4) and redelivered the promissory note to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad976; (1953)2MLJ247
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of suits instituted by the land-holder under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act for recovery of rents from the defendants. The item of property in respect of which rent was claimed was in the occupation of the defendants for a long time. There was an earlier litigation between the zamindar and the tenant in respect of this land and other items in O. S. No. 49 of 1906 on the file of the Peddapur District Munsif's Court. In that suit it was pleaded by the predecessors of the present defendants that this land was in their occupation for over the statutory period and that they were enjoying it without payment of rent of the zamindar. The zamindar attempted to claim this land in that suit as part of a grant which he made to one Bhavayyammaraogaru. The finding was that this land was not included in the zamindari jeroyti lands granted under the gift deed of Bhavayyammaraogaru. It was also further found that there was no evidence to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad988; (1953)2MLJ209
1. In O.S. No. 431 of 1935 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kundapur, a mortgage decree was passed by which the defendants therein were to pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs within a stipulated period in default of which a final decree had to be passed for sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants were members of a joint Hindu family of which defendant 1 was the father and manager and defendants 2 and 3 were his two minor sons. The preliminary decree was passed on 30-11-1935 and since no payment was made, a final decree Ex. B-2 was passed on 10-7-1936. In pursuance of that final decree, the hypotheca was sold by public auction on 16-1-1937 and the mortgagee decree-holder himself became the purchaser. Before the sale was confirmed, defendant 1 Manjunatha Hebbar died on 23-1-1937. No steps were taken to declare that defendants 2 and 3 were the legal representatives of defendant 1 and no attempt was made to appoint anybody as guardian-ad-litem of the minor defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad743; (1953)1MLJ630
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment in C. M. P. No. 8302 of 1950. One of the questions raised in the petition was whether Section 20 of Act 26 of 1948 applied to a post-settlement minor inam. We held the section applied. The Government Pleader argued that our decision would affect innumerable post-settlement minor inams which have been recently notified under the Act. On that ground it is pressed that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. We have no doubt that the question raised is of public importance and therefore we should grant leave. But learned counsel for the respondent, while conceding that the point raised is of sufficient importance, contended that if unconditional leave is granted his client's interest would suffer. He says that the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is only about Rs. 3,000, and that if his client is compelled to go to the Supreme Court he may not be in a position to cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad792
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a long-drawn-out petition, having a tangled history which must be set out briefly for the purpose of understanding the facts and issues involved.2. The petition is by Dr. Dwaraka Bai, M.B.B.S.. an Indian Christian doctor of Guntur, now aged 43, for divorce against her husband Professor Nainan Mathews M.A., B.L., a retired Indian Christian Professor, now aged 60, and till recently 'a regular student of the United Theological College, Bangalore. The petitioner took her M.B.B.S. degree in Madras in 1935 and began practising at Guntur where her father also is a doctor. When she became nearly 36 years old, i.e., in the beginning of 1946, she felt an urgent desire to get married. She, therefore, wanted to find out a suitable man to marry. One Mrs. Joseph, aSyrian Christian doctor of Bapatla, in Guntur district, told her about the respondent, Nainan Mathews, and told her also that he was by age, education, culture, family and character eminently fitted to be h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad837; (1954)ILLJ134Mad
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by an employer who runs a_ saw mill in Beypore in South Malabar against an order by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras awarding compensation of Rs. 1500 to the widow of one Velayudhan, an employee in the saw mill who is said to have died in consequence of injuries sustained in the course of his employment. It is not disputed that when he was feeding the saw with timber he got his hand cut. There is divergence of testimony as to the extent of the injuries. According to his widow, he was rather seriously cut on three fingers and came home with his hand bandaged saying that he was treated with native medicine by the mill authorities. According to the employer who did not go into the witness-box and examined a driver in his employ, Velayudhan received only a small cut on his little finger.The Commissioner found that the injury was sustained on 21-6-1950 after which Velayudhan came regularly to work till he was taken to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad852; (1953)1MLJ622
ORDERVenkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the sons of one Vaiyapuri Filial and all of them constitute members of a joint Hindu family. On 9-3-1944, Vaiyapuri Pillai settled various properties on plaintiff l under Ex. A. 1. Thereafter he executed a deed of gift Ex, B. 1 on 11-2-1945 in favour of his step-sister Sendamaral Ammal, who is defendant 2 in the suit. The deed of gift related to one of the properties comprised in the settlement deed Ex. A. L On the same day Vaiyapuri Pillai executed the sale deed, Ex. B. 3, in favour of defendant 1, Balasundara Gramani, who is no other than the husband of Sendamarai Ammal, defendant 2. That sale deed related to properties not covered by Ex. A. 1 and that was for a sum of Rs. 200. The plaintiffs claimed that both the deeds, Exs. B. 1 and B. 3 were not binding on them. That contention has been accepted by both the courts below. It has been held that Ex. B. l, the gift deed in favour of defendant 2, is void and not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad857; (1953)2MLJ92
Raghava Rao, J.1. C. R. P. No. 1673 of 1952 : In answer to an execution petition before the City Civil Court in respect of an order of eviction originally passed by the Rent Controller which became final by the dismissal of the civil revision petition by Ramaswami Goundar J. in this Court, it was urged by the tenant in the execution application filed by him that the question of his default in the matter of payment of rent was a matter to be decided with reference to its wilfulness or otherwise under the provisions of Section 7(2) (a) proviso of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. If the default were to be found not wilful it was urged for the tenant that the execution of the decree for eviction which followed upon the original Rent Controller's order for eviction would not be competent. The City Civil Court refused to go into the question of the wilfulness or otherwise of the default and dismissed the execution application. In this revision against the order of dis...
Tag this Judgment!