Chennai Court November 1937 Judgments
Marneni Kondappa Naidu and anr. Vs. Pamidi Marri Mahalakshmamma and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ206
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is, how these Letters Patent Appeals that were stayed, are now to be disposed of. The suits were brought for the recovery of rent in respect of lands situated in a shrotriem and it was pleaded inter alia that the village was an estate within the meaning of Act I of 1908, and that the District MunsifFs Court where the suits were filed had no jurisdiction. Both the Courts have found that the shrotriem in question is not an estate as defined by Section 3(2)(d) of the Act mentioned and have accordingly passed a decree for a certain amount. This decision of the lower Courts was confirmed by Madhavan Nair, J., and it is his judgment that is attacked in these Letters Patent Appeals. An application was made, while they were pending, under Section 127 of Madras Act VIII of 1934 that they should be stayed, presumably upon the ground that the appeals were 'proceedings involving a decision whether or not the inamdar has the kudivaram right' in the suit la...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sundaram Aiyangar Vs. the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad594; (1938)1MLJ543
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a mortgage suit in which the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver. The mortgagor who had become an insolvent, was impleaded as the first defendant and his assignee the Official Receiver was joined as the fifth. In the presence of the latter and after objection by him, the plaintiff himself was appointed as receiver. The Official Receiver having granted certain leases of the property, the plaintiff as the receiver applied, first that the former should be directed to furnish certain particulars regarding the leases and secondly, that he should be directed to deposit the monies collected by him. The lower Court allowed the application and Burn, J., set aside that order. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the correctness of the learned Judge's order is attacked.2. We fail to see how the lower Court's order of appointment of receiver can be attacked. The plaintiff was appointed receiver on the 3rd September, 1934, and the order appointing him has be...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.R. Shanmugham Chettiar (Died) and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ682
King, J.1. On the 31st of October, 1922, one Swaminatha Chettiar was adjudicated an insolvent on a petition presented by a creditor of his on the preceding 24th April. On the 31st March, 1922, the insolvent had assigned a number of decrees to the appellant in this case. The Official Receiver filed an application to have this assignment set aside and on the 22nd of November, 1924, the assignment was duly annulled by the Insolvency Court. Subsequently in March, 1930, after an appeal against the annulment to the High Court had been dismissed, the Official Receiver filed a suit to recover from the appellant whatever money he had actually collected in execution of the decrees which had been assigned to him. The only question at issue in this appeal is one of limitation. Both the Courts below have held that a distinction should be drawn between the two periods (1) that between the assignment and the date of the order annulling the assignment and (2) the period, subsequent to that order. With...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Morsan Alias Chinnathambi Pattan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad393; 173Ind.Cas.394; (1938)1MLJ482
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot of offences under Sections 235 and 243, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently.2. So far as the offence under Section 243, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the evidence on record does not warrant a conviction and the learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that it does not. He must therefore be acquitted of this offence.3. The next question is whether the conviction under Section 235, Indian Penal Code, is sustainable. Section 235 runs thus:Whoever is in possession of any instrument or material, for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin, or knowing or having reason to believe that the game is intended to be used for that purpose, shall be punished....4. Before an offence can be made out under this section, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove not only the possess...
Tag this Judgment!Durairangam Pillai Vs. Govindarajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad560; (1938)2MLJ135
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. He is the surviving son of one Ramaswami Pillai who died in October, 1926. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellant and his brother for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,250 for principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 4th October, 1925, executed by their late father. The promissory note was for Rs. 3,750. The plaintiff's case is that the money was lent to Ramaswami Pillai and that the promissory note was executed by him at Tanjore between 8 and 9 A.M., on 4th October, 1925. The promissory note recites that the money was borrowed by the deceased for his contract business. The deceased was a P.W.D. and Abkari Contractor, on a large scale with his headquarters at Cuddalore in the South Arcot District. The appellant and his brother contended that the promissory note was a forgery, that their father had no necessity to borrow money and that the plaintiff had no means to lend the money. They also contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Makina Atchayya Patrudu Vs. JalaluddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad454; (1938)1MLJ190
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice King, in a second appeal reversing the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The learned Judge has found that the mosque, the defendant in the suit, has established its title by adverse possession. The question to decide is whether that view is right.2. The suit relates to a vacant site adjacent to the house of the plaintiff, who bases his title to it, upon a sale deed of 1899 executed by one Ambu Sarang Saheb. There was some difficulty in obtaining possession and a suit was filed and a decree was obtained against the vendor in 1900. Whether the decree has been executed or not is a matter in debate, but in our opinion nothing turns upon it. The claim has been resisted by certain persons on behalf of the mosque and the points to decide are, whether the plaintiff has been in possession within 12 years of the action and whether the mosque obtained title by adverse possession.3. On both these points it...
Tag this Judgment!Kotta Annapurnamma Vs. Makku Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad323; (1938)1MLJ135
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question in this Letters Patent Appeal is, whether the view of the learned Judge that the execution petition in question is barred by limitation, is right. The lower Court had decided that the petition was in time and that decision was reversed by the learned Judge. The starting point under Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act is:The date of the final order passed on an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree.2. One Subbaraju obtained the final decree in the mortgage suit in question on 9th September, 1926, and the present petition was filed by his widow Annapurnamma on 23rd December, 1931, for execution of that decree. It is contended that this execution petition is in time, by reason of a previous petition for execution filed on 15th October, 1928, which was dismissed by an order, dated 15th April, 1929. The short point for decision is, whether the previous executio...
Tag this Judgment!Venkadari Somappa Vs. the Official Receiver of Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad801; (1938)2MLJ362
1. The appeal is against the order of the learned District Judge of Bellary, passed in insolvency declaring void a mortgage executed by the insolvent in favour of the appellant. The Official Receiver attacked this mortgage both under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned District Judge however declared it void on another ground, namely, that it was completed after the insolvency petition had been presented and after the appellant had come to know of that fact. On the face of it the mortgage-deed was executed on the 5th March, 1933. It was presented for registration on the 27th June in the office of the Sub-Registrar. The mortgagors denied registration and the Sub-Registrar held an enquiry and finally refused to admit the document to registration. On appeal to the District Registrar the latter directed the document to be registered and this was finally done on the 11th December, 1933, under the provisions of Section 75 of the Indian Registration Act (XVI of 19...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gopalakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad390
Venkaramana Rao, J.1. In this case, the case for the prosecution was that on 1st November 1936 accused 1 to 7 formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing injury to P.W. 3 and wrestling from his possession the goods which were suspected to be smuggled and forcibly removed from their possession. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused 3, 4, 6 and 7 but convicted accused 1, 2 and 5. All that was found against accused 1 and 2 was that they were found to be present at the scene of offence and that accused 5 ran away with the bundle which fell from the hands of P.W. 3 during the course of the scuffle with the assailants. There is no reliable evidence as to whether more that five took part in the attack against P.W. 3 and most of the witnesses who were called on the side of the prosecution have been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. He therefore acquitted four out of the seven persons charged with the offence of rioting. It seems ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govindaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.417; (1938)1MLJ110
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the learned District Magistrate of the Nilgiris ordering further enquiry into the case of the ten accused who are the petitioners before me and who along with nine others were charged by the police under Sections 147, 452 and 426, Indian Penal Code and tried by the Joint Magistrate of Coonoor in C.C. No. 10 of 1937 on his file. The Joint Magistrate, after examining all but two of the witnesses for the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioners was groundless and that in regard to the remaining nine accused there was a prima facie case for a charge being framed. Accordingly on 18th March, 1937, he framed a charge in regard to the said nine persons and pronounced an order of discharge so far as the ten petitioners are concerned under Section 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the 29th March, 1937, a revision petition was presented by the Crown before the District Magistrate,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »