Chennai Court December 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.
Bhamidipati Satyanarayana, Receiver, Chinchinada Estate Vs. Alluri Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad459; (1938)1MLJ204
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point is one of some difficulty in respect to Section 42 of the Madras Estates Land (I of 1908). The landholder filed an application before the Sub-Collector under Section 42(2) praying for an alteration of the amount of rent in respect of the excess area in the defendant's holding. The rent which was sought to be altered, was being paid under the terms of a patta which had been for long in force. At that time there was a previous suit filed by the landholder, pending before the Sub-Collector, for rent under the Act. The defendant had pleaded that the rent claimed was excessive and issues had been framed in the suit. It was at this stage that the application under Section 42(2) was made.2. The Sub-Collector heard the application and the suit concurrently and gave a consolidated decision, as it were, holding the defendant liable in respect of a large excess area and passed a decree upon that footing, for back rent also, thus giving retrospective effect to his ...
A.N.C.T. Subbiah thevar, Trustee of Sree Vedapuriswaraswami Koil and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad353; (1938)1MLJ334
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference embraces two questions, which may be stated as follows: - (1) Does Article 36 or Article 120 of the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, apply to a suit filed against a trustee or ex-trustee to make good loss sustained by the trust by reason of his omission to collect moneys due to the trust? (2) If Article 120 is applicable, when does limitation commence to run2. Article 36 relates to suits for compensation for malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance independent of contract and not specially provided for in the schedule of the Act. It fixes a period of two years from the date when the malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance takes place. Article 120 is the residuary article. It fixes a limitation period of six years in respect of suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule and time begins to run when the right to sue accrues. It has been necessary to refer the questions set out above to a...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Srinivasa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad541; (1938)1MLJ669
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an appellate order of acquittal and the question for determination is whether the accused are guilty of the offence tinder Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The accused are the Secretary and an Accountant of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, Ltd., and the undisputed facts are that on 22nd August, 1936, the Sanitary Inspector of the Saidapet Municipality demanded a sample of butter from the Saidapet branch of the Society under Section 14 of the Act. The Accountant gave the sample and received the value, and the butter was on test found to be adulterated. The accused were prosecuted under Section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and the trial Court convicted them under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 of the rules framed under S...
Rarichan (Minor) by Guardian Unnooli Alias Madhavi Vs. M.R. Anantanara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad313; (1938)1MLJ235
ORDER1. In exceptional circumstances, it has been laid down, an infant plaintiff can be called on to furnish security for costs. Mani Bai v. Lodd Govind Doss (1907) 18 M.L.J. 155. In the case of a pauper appellant again, it has been uniformly held in this province (though a different view prevails in the other Courts) that if special grounds are shown, he can be required to find security. Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 66, Saldanha v. Hart I.L.R. (1920) Mad. 902, Narayana Rao v. Veerayya : AIR1933Mad519 and Subbiah Thevar v. Balasubramania Pandia Thalavar (1931) M.W.N. 1157. Thus, the fact that the appellant here is both a minor and a pauper, does not by itself entitle him to resist the application. In this case the effect of Burn, J.'s order is that the minor pauper is a mere creature in the hands of persons well able to find security. This being so, the learned Judge's order is confirmed and the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Vatasseri Ittichathara Valia Mannadiar (Karnavan and Manager of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad495; (1938)1MLJ255
1. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. T.A. Anantha Aiyar for the appellant that because Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to execution proceedings the lower Court had no power to dismiss for default the appellant's application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code. All the cases in which it has been held that Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to proceedings in execution have been either cases in which applications have been dismissed for default or cases in which ex parte orders have been passed. The rulings have been that since Order 9 was inapplicable, the applications could not be restored nor the ex parte orders set aside. Nobody has suggested till now that the dismissal for default or passing of art ex parte order was without jurisdiction. We are prepared to hold that dismissal for default is well within the inherent powers of the Court. It is in our opinion absurd to say that the Court must proceed to give a decision o...
S.N.V.R. Narayanan Chetti Vs. S.Pr.Al. Periappan Alias Ramanathan Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad887; (1938)2MLJ557
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which we are called upon now to decide in this case is whether the memorandum of appeal has been properly stamped. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga for the taking of the accounts of a dissolved partnership. The plaintiff valued his relief at Rs. 16,500 and paid the court-fee of Rs. 1,004-15-0. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court and in his memorandum of appeal valued the relief at Rs. 1,000 paying the corresponding court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0. In consequence of the decision of this Court in Nukala Venkatanandam, In re (1932) 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705, this valuation was accepted by the officer whose duty it was to check the stamping of the memorandum of appeal. But that case has recently been overruled by a Full Bench in Dhanukodi Nayakkar, In re : AIR1938Mad435 . The resp...
In Re: Dasi Virayya Alias Sampson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ289
Mockett, J.1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife on the 28th of July, 1937, at about 10 o'clock in the morning. At the time of murder, the deceased was not living with the accused but was living about 100 yards away in the hut of P.W. 1. She had left her husband and was living under P.W. 1's protection. In P.W. 1's hut was also living a little girl, the daughter of the accused and the deceased (P.W. 2 in this case), who was a young child appearing to be about 7 or 8 years in the Sessions Court. Her evidence is that on that morning she was in P.W. 1's hut powdering chillies and her mother was washing cloths near the palmyra trees when her father, the accused, arrived and cut the deceased with a knife. She states:My father held my mother's tuft of hair and cut her neck. I was frightened that he would cut me also and hid myself behind a wall. Then I went to my grandfather's house and reported to him.2. Then she describes how her father ran awa...
Devulapalli Sabhanadri Sastrulu Vs. Dorbala Nagayya Sastry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad420; (1938)1MLJ413
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner's mother Devulapalli Kanchamma, instituted O.S. No. 7 of 1934 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur to recover possession of properties which she claimed constituted the estate of her deceased father, Dorbala Narasimha Sastri. Her mother had predeceased her father and she was the only issue of the marriage. She averred that her father had separated from his brothers and on this footing claimed the estate as the sole heir. The lower Court dismissed the suit and Kanchamma then appealed to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal she died and the petitioner applied to be allowed to continue the appeal. This petition is now before us and is opposed.2. The petitioner is an insolvent and was an insolvent when he filed the petition. He seeks to be allowed to continue the appeal because the Official Receiver has refused to become the appellant. The Official Receiver did apply to this Court on the 12th July for an order direct...
Chada Mangiah and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad619; (1938)1MLJ519
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In these Letters Patent Appeals the question to be decided is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled, as claimed by them, to a refund of water-cess collected by the Government. Although some relief has been granted to them, all the Courts have unanimously upheld the right of the Government to levy the water-cess. For the plaintiffs, it is contended that this contention is wrong.2. The land to which the appeals relate, is a part of a minor inam of the total extent of about 20 acres, situate in a ryotwari village known as Manyapu Uratla in Vizagapatam District. The inam in question bore the old Survey Nos. 143-a and 143-b, of which 143-a corresponds to the Re-Survey Nos. 143-1 and 143-3 and 143-b to the. Re-Survey No. 143-2. We are concerned here with the plot bearing Re-Survey No. 143-1 alone. The plaintiffs' inam adjoins, and is roughly south-west of Gurampet Agraharatn, through which passes a channel known as Papanna Cherikalvai, marked ABDF in the sketch, flowing...
In Re: Rahiman Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad403
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot. The appellant was tried along with six other Mahomedans for offences of rioting and murder. The appellant alone was charged Under Section 148, I.P.C. for rioting armed with a deadly weapon and for murder. The other accused were charged Under Section 147. The learned Sessions Judge found that no common object had been established and therefore the charges Under Sections 147 and 148 fell to the ground. But with regard to the charge of murder the learned Sessions Judge found it proved that the appellant caused the death of an Adi-dravida named Nondi by stabbing him in the chest with a spear or some such weapon.2. The death of Nondi was caused in the course of a riot, using the word in a popular sense, which occurred on the night of 23rd May 1937 near the Adi-dravida quarters in the village of Kottaicheri. Accused 7 was employing an old Adi-dravida woman (P.W. 4) to be i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »