Chennai Court November 1937 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.
Valli Ammal and anr. Vs. Arunachala Moopanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad385; (1938)1MLJ368
Abdur Rahman, J.1. When the trial of a suit for a declaration that a certain alienation by defendant 1 as a widow would not affect the plaintiff's reversionary interests was about to commence, he challenged her (defendant 1) to take a special oath in a temple where camphor was to be lighted by him and extinguished by her while taking the oath. This offer was duly accepted by defendant 1 and the trial Court consequently appointed a Commissioner to administer the oath in the form proposed by the plaintiff. The date and time were fixed for the purpose, but on account of certain negotiations between the parties to have the matter settled otherwise, the oath could not be administered and the Commissioner submitted a report to the Court and related the circumstances in which the order of the Court could not be carried out. Since the defendant was willing to take the oath, the trial Court ordered the plaintiff to pay another fee to the Commissioner, which he declined to do and his suit was ac...
In Re: thevar Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad477; 173Ind.Cas.450
Horwill, J.1. The appellants in C.A. No. 170 of 1937 were charged Under Sections 392, 394 and 397, I.P.C., with having waylaid a bandy and beaten the driver and the occupant and taken from the occupant valuable jewels; in the alternative they were charged Under Section 411, I.P.C. The jury have found them guilty Under Sections 392, 394 and 397. The appellants in C.A. No. 136 of 1937 were charged with receiving property that has been the subject of this robbery. The jury have found them guilty of the offences under which they were charged. The Assistant Sessions Judge of Ramnad sentenced accused 1 and 2, who are the appellants in C.A. No. 170 of 1937, to the minimum sentence Under Section 397, viz. seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants in C.A. No. 136 of 1937, who were accused 3 and 4, have been sentenced to the maximum punishment which can be inflicted Under Section 411,1. P.C. 2. With regard to accused 3, from whom the stolen property was recovered four days after the off...
Thathachariar and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Raghava Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.986
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J. in S.A. No. 469 of 1932, dated April 14, 1936. The second appeal arose out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and his family were entitled to the first honours, namely thirtham, thulasi and Sri Satari on the occasion of the Pavittrotsavam festival in the temple of Sri Sarangapaniswami at Kumbakonam. The plaintiff's case was that he and his family had been performing the said festival from time immemorial and that immediately after the prayers or worship are over, an offering of food prepared at the plaintiff's expense is offered to the deity and after karpoora harathi the plaintiff has to be given thirtham, thulasi, etc., and Sri Satari has to be placed over his head with parivattam, i.e., a piece of silk cloth. The claim was thus, as stated by Venkataramana Rao, J., 'rested on longstanding custom and practice' and related entirely to 'first honours' in connection with the festival which the pla...
In Re: Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad336
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur for murdering a little boy on 18th February 1987 and has been sentermed to death. This is one of those sadly too frequent cases in which children are murdered for the sake of jewellery on them. There is no reason to distrust the evidence of the mother of the little boy (P.W. l) who says that on the night of 18th February her little boy ran out to play after taking his evening meal, wearing a pair of gold bangles and a pair of gold earrings When the little boy's corpse was found by the side of the donka leading from the village towards Dharmapuram, the jewels had been removed. The boy had been murdered apparently by dropping a large stone upon his head. Two blood, stained stones were found close by, one weighing about one and half maunds and the other quite a small one. There can be no doubt but that the child was murdered in this brutal fashion for the sake of the jewels which he was wearing.2. The e...
In Re: Dhanukodi Nayakkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad435; (1938)1MLJ628
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference raises the much discussed question of the bearing of Section 7(iv)(f)of the Court-Fees Act of 1870 when the defendant is the appellant. In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and for an account filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura the plaintiff valued his relief, so far as it concerned his claim for an account, at Rs. 3,000. He obtained a preliminary decree, which was followed in due course by a final decree, by which he was declared to be entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 32,000. The preliminary decree was challenged on appeal to the District Court of Madura, but this appeal had not been decided at the time of the passing of the final decree by the trial Court. An appeal against the final decree was also filed, and the District Court heard the two appeals together. The result was that the decree of the trial Court, so far as it directed the payment of money, was varied, it being held that t...
A.V. Narayanaswami Pillai Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad400
Pandrang Row, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one A.T. Venkatanarayana Pillai, who died subsequently, against the Secretary of State for India for a declaration that he is entitled to use the water of a channel known as Kandianmadai for irrigating his lands, and also for refund of the penal water rate collected from him in 1924, namely Rs. 203-3-6. The plaintiff's suit for the declaration was dismissed by the first Court, but he was given a decree for the actual amount of penal water rate levied from him, namely Rs. 193-12-0. On appeal by the Secretary of State for India against this decree, the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore went further and gave in addition a declaration in favour of the plaintiff of his right to irrigate the plaint wet lands with the water of the aforesaid channel. A second appeal was preferred by the Secretary of State and that was allowed with the result that the entire suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs throughout by W...
K.M. Srinivasam Pillai Vs. Y.P.R.L. Alagappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad372; (1938)1MLJ50
Pandrang Row, J.1. This case arises out of an application filed by two creditors of the insolvents in I.P. Nos. 133 to 135 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to declare as void a mortgage-deed executed by two of the insolvents for Rs. 20,000 on 7th December, 1926, in favour of the first respondent and also for cancellation of the assignment of the mortgage bond by the first respondent on 2nd January, 1930, in favour of the second respondent. The application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who heard the witnesses, but on appeal by the creditors the District Judge allowed the application and set aside the mortgage deed, Ex. III. In revision it is contended inter alia that the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge in the disposal of the appeal was not according to law, and in particular that his reception of additional evidence in appeal was contrary to the provisions of law which govern admission of additional evidence in appeal. To understand thi...
Puthiya Veettil Moideen's son Ahammu Vs. Patiyath Ayidross Haji's son ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad836; (1938)2MLJ251
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the first defendant in the trial Court. The suit was to enforce a hypothecation bond dated the 5th June, 1912, which was executed by the father of the appellant, a Sunni Mohammadan, in favour of respondents 2 to 9. The bond was assigned to the first respondent who was the plaintiff in the suit, on the 19th July, 1928. The principle sum due under the mortgage was Rs. 5,000 which was repayable in 15 annual instalments of Rs. 375. The first of the instalments fell due in the year 1913 and the last in 1927. The appellant's father died soon after the mortgage bond had been executed, but the instalments for the years 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916 were paid regularly on behalf of his heirs. On the 17th September, 1917, the estate of the appellant's father was partitioned amongst his heirs and the first appellant was made responsible for discharging the debt under the hypothecation bond. No question arises as to the validity of the partition or o...
G. Meenakshisundaram Aiyar Vs. Swaminatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad456; (1938)2MLJ404
Pandrang Row, J.1. In this appeal the only question for determination is, as stated by Wadsworth, J., whether it is permissible to plead in bar of execution of the final decree in a mortgage suit an unregistered agreement alleged to have been executed by the decree-holder after the passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree whereby the decree-holder agreed not to execute the decree against two out of four items of the hypotheca which were in the enjoyment and possession of the appellant. The learned Judge appears to have thought that the agreement was drafted with a view to avoid the application of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and of Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view does not seem to be correct, because if, as contended by the appellant, it is an agreement relating to the execution of the final decree arrived at before the final decree was passed, none of these provisions of law would come into operation or affect the agreement ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. CaptaIn R. Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad233
Horwill, J.1. The accused entered into a contract with the District Forest Officer of the Nilgiris to convey quantities of sandalwood from the Seigur Range in the Nilgiris District to Satyamangalam in the Coimbatore District. For the purpose of fulfilling his contract, he used his registered private lorry and on one of his trips to Coimbatore, the lorry was stopped within that district by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Annui, and when the driver was asked for the 'G' permit, it was found that he had none; and he and the owner were therefore charged by the Coimbatore Police Under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, The owner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Mettupalayam. In appeal the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the car was actually let for hire within the Nilgiris District and that therefore the Courts of Coimbatore District had no jurisdiction to try the offence, the Sub-divisional Magistrate holding that Under Rule 30(a), the motor vehicle is prohibited from bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »