Chennai Court December 1937 Judgments
Bachu Mallikarjuna Rao Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad449; (1938)1MLJ471
Burn, J.1. The facts in this case are quite simple. The appellant is the purchaser at a sale held in execution on the 10th December, 1935. The decree was passed on the I6th April, 1935, and the execution petition was put in on the next day. An order for sale was passed on the 21st October, 1935, but four days before that, namely, on the 17th October, 1935, one of the judgment-debtors (third defendant in the suit) had been adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 15 of 1935. It was the property of the third defendant that had been attached in E.P. No. 87 of 1935 and proclaimed for sale in the order passed on the 21st October, iy35. On the 19th November, 1935, one of the creditors of the insolvent judgment-debtor put in an application in which he informed the executing Court of the adjudication of the third defendant, but the learned Subordinate Judge refused to stay the sale. On the 4th December, 1935, the Official Receiver was impleaded in the execution petition. He did not appear on the 9th ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Subbarayaloo Vs. Ranganatha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad571; (1938)1MLJ530
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is an important one, namely, whether the plaintiffs are not eligible to vote in the election of the dharmakarthas of the Sri Parthasarathy Swami Temple, Triplicane, Madras, by reason of their being members (to use an expression in vogue) of an 'untouchable caste'. Mr. Ramappa, the City Civil Judge, has declared in their favour, but on appeal his judgment has been reversed by Pandrang Row, J. The two judgments reveal, in sharp contrast, two widely differing modes of approach to the problem and its treatment.2. A scheme of administration was framed for this temple by a Special Bench of the High Court in 1925. Clause 2 provides that the management shall be carried on by the dharmakarthas under the supervision and control of a Board of Supervision. Clause 6 says that the dharmakarthas and the members of the Board shall be elected in the manner hereafter appearing. Clause 7 prescribes that every person shall be entitled to vote at any such election...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narapa Reddi Sesha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ876
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The appellant Narapa Reddi Sesha Reddi was chared before the learned Sessions Judge of Cuddapah with having committed offences under Sections 218 and 219, Indian Penal Code, for framing an incorrect record, or writing with intent to cause loss or injury to one Chemarti Venkatasubbayya, P.W. 3, in the case, and for pronouncing a verdict which he knew to be contrary to law, and for offences under Sections 466 and 474, Indian Penal Code, for forgery of a record of a Court of Justice and using a document as genuine knowing it to be not genuine. During the course of the trial the learned Public Prosecutor in the Court below did not press the charges under Sections 466 and 474, Indian Penal Code, and the accused was acquitted in respect of those charges. The learned Sessions Judge, on a discussion of the entire evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 218 and 219, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to on...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Adiraju Somanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Mad634; (1938)2MLJ100
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a petition for revision against the order passed by Mr. Mack, District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, declaring the petitioner to be a tout under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Government Pleader to the effect that the order passed by the lower Court is not open to revision. The point is of considerable importance as it involves the question of valuable rights of a citizen and has therefore to be carefully examined.3. The contention raised by the Government Pleader is based on the addition of Sub-clause. (2) to Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which did not find a place in the corresponding Section 107 of the prior Act of 1919. Sub-clause. (2) of Section 224 of the present Act reads as follows :Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revis...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnamprath Payyantan Govindan, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad581; (1938)1MLJ313
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of King J., two questions of law have been argued. In 1889, the suit property was leased by the then jenmi to the defendant's ancestor for a period of three years. While the tenant was in occupation, the jenmi granted a melcharath in 1913. Having previously terminated the lease, the jenmi as the 1st plaintiff and the melcharathdar, as the 2nd, brought in 1915 a suit in ejectment against the tenant. In the plaint, was made the allegation, that it was the melcharathdar that was both entitled to the property and liable to pay the value of the improvements. On that basis, it was prayed that a decree should be passed, directing possession to be delivered to the melcharathdar on his depositing the amount due. Thus, it will be seen that the jenmi, although he joined in the suit as the first plaintiff, prayed for no relief in his own favour and made it clear that he was not to be made liable for the amount payable to the le...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam Chettiar Vs. the Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ351
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner obtained a money decree against one Govinda Rao and in execution thereof attached certain movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor and brought them to sale. Govinda Rao under an order of assessment dated the 28th August, 1934, was required to pay a sum of Rs. 301-13-0 by way of income-tax. He did not comply with the notice of demand for payment and on the 12th November, 1934, a penalty of Rs. 10 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer because of the default, thus increasing the total amount due by the assessee to Rs. 311-13-0. Before the sale the Income-tax Officer filed an application in Court asking for an order directing the payment out to him from the sale proceeds when the sale took place of the amount due to Government by Govinda Rao. The sale in execution was in due course carried out, but only realised on Rs. 227-9-0. After reserving the amount required for the costs of execution the District Munsiff ordered the balance ...
Tag this Judgment!Thazhe Nelloli Pazhe Peringati Athiramankutti and anr. Vs. Thazhe Nell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad570; (1938)1MLJ400
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Sridharan strenuously contends that the judgment under appeal is wrong. The question need not be considered whether under the customary law of Malabar a permanent irredeemable kanom can be granted. According to the respondents (the tenants) such a kanom demise under the Malabar Law is valid and their contention has been accepted by both the Courts below and by Venkataramana Rao, J. It is unnecessary, as we have said, to examine the soundness of this position.2. Then the question remains whether the respondents have acquired by adverse possession a permanent tenant right. This has been answered in the affirmative by the lower Courts and by the learned Judge who heard the second appeal. Ex. I of 1869 purports to create an irredeemable permanent right. Ex. A of 1895 does not supersede, as Mr. Sridharan contends, the deed of 1869, but on the contrary gives effect to a provision for renewal which that deed contains. In 1903 the then jenmi of the suit property gran...
Tag this Judgment!Manubolu Rangareddi Vs. Maramreddi Dasaradharami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad441; (1938)1MLJ552
1. The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gudur for a declaration that he is the rightful holder of the office of headman either of the village of Gudur East or of Gudur West and that he is entitled to be appointed to one of these offices. These villages originally formed one village; but were converted into two in 1918. Before the division took place Gudur consisted of Gudur proper and five hamlets, namely, Vemulapalem, Veerareddi-pallee, Purittipalkm, Puthipallam and Divipalem. The headman of Gudur had jurisdiction over Gudur itself and the hamlets of Vemulapalem and Veerareddipallee, but there was an assistant headman appointed in respect of Purittipallam, Puthipallam and Divipalem. In 1908, the first respondent's father was appointed headman of Gudur, Vemulapalem and Veerareddipallee, and held this office until 1912, when he resigned. The first respondent's name was then registered with the Collector with a view to the first respondent being ...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam Chettiar Vs. Income-tax Officer, MadurA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad360; [1938]6ITR180(Mad)
ORDER OF REFERENCE.VARADACHARIAR, J. - Mr. Balasubramania Aiyar raised two questions before me, in support of this revision petition. On one of them I feel little doubt, but the other point is one of some importance and, notwithstanding the reliance placed on behalf of the Government on the decisions in Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Vedantam and Soneram Rameshur v. Mary Pinto. I think that it should be considered by a Division Bench or even by a Full Bench if the Chief Justice so directs.This revision petition arises out of an application made by the Income-tax Officer of Madura South to the District Munsif of Madura Town, purporting to be under Sec. 151 C.P.C., and praying that out of some moneys in the custody of that court in the course of the execution of a decree obtained by the present petitioner against the assessee, the arrears of income-tax due by the assessee, might be paid in the first instance. Two questions were raised before the lower court on behalf of the present pet...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Ramachandran and anr. Vs. R.G. Balasubramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad347; (1938)1MLJ285
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioners are brothers and constituted an undivided Hindu family. The first petitioner became of age in December, 1931. The second petitioner was a minor when the proceedings out of which these petitions arise began. In 1925 the respondent was appointed guardian of the property of the petitioners. His appointment ceased on the first petitioner attaining majority in December, 1931. On this event happening, the respondent filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge of Tinnevelly asking that he be discharged from his guardianship. Thereupon the petitioners filed two counter-petitions. In one they asked the Court to assign the bond which had been executed as security for the respondent's stewardship and the other was for an order directing his accounts to be audited. The respondent's petition was granted, but the petitioners' applications were both dismissed. This Court is now asked, in the exercise of its powers under Section 115 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »