The Indian Law Reports - Madras Series

1939

A collection of legal judgments from the Madras High Court.

Read full Act

S.Civil Revision Petition No. 1193 of 1937 SRIMATH KACHI CHINNA NALLAPPA KALAKKA THOLA UDAYAR AVARGAL, ZAMINDAR OF UDAYARPALAYAM (COUNTER-PETITIONER), PETITIONER v. SUDAI UDAYAN AND TEN OTHERS (PETITIONERS), RESPONDENTS

APPELLATE CIVIL.

Before Sir Lionel Leach, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Patanjali Sastri.

Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908), sec. 40 as amended in 1934—Right to apply under—Ryot paying rent at rates varying with the crop—Rent paid in cash—Case of.

A ryot who pays rent at rates varying with the crop is entitled to apply under section 40 (as amended) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 for an order commuting the rent to a definite money rent whether he pays the rent in cash or in kind. The words "whether in cash or in kind" in the section ought not to be read as meaning sometimes in cash and sometimes in kind.

Petition under section 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the Collector of Trichinopoly, dated 24th June 1937 and made in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2 of 1936 preferred against the order of the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur, dated 14th November 1936 and made in Miscellaneous Petit

S.Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 1937 A. P. M. SYED IBRAHIM SAHIB AND BROTHER (APPELLANT), APPELLANT v. V. S. GURULINGA AIYAR (RESPONDENT), RESPONDENT

APPELLATE CIVIL.

Before Sir Lionel Leach, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Patanjali Sastri.

Indian Partnership Act (IX of 1932), ss. 69 (2) and 74—Former section, if prevails over latter—Suit by firm to enforce rights which accrued before commencement of Act—Maintainability—Firm not registered.

Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932, which requires a firm to be registered before instituting a suit to enforce rights, does not prevail over section 74 of that Act, which saves rights and remedies which existed before the Act came into force. Therefore a suit filed by a firm to enforce rights which accrued before the commencement of the Act can be maintained in spite of the non-registration of the firm.

The majority decision in Girdharilal Son & Co. v. Kappini Gowder(1) followed.

Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of STODART J., dated 1st March 1937 and passed in Second Appeal No. 138 of 1936 preferred.