Chennai Court March 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.
thekke Veettil Makkam Amma and ors. Vs. thekke Veetil Kunhi Kalappa Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad289
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a kanom executed in favour of the assignor of defendants 1 and 2 in or about 1913 by the then karnavan of a tar wad known as Thekkevetti tarwad. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the respective heads of their tavazhies which are branches of the same tarwad. Defendants 1 and 2 also belong to the same tarwad. The right of redemption is claimed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 under two karars executed by the karnavan of the tarwad, Ex. C dated 5th August 1916 in favour of plaintiff 1's branch and Ex. B dated 7th November 1916 in favour of plaintiff 2's branch. The said karars purport to be assignments of land in lieu of maintenance of the members forming the said tavazhies. There were several items of land assigned under the said karars and one of the said items assigned to each was half a share in the land which forms the subject-matter of this suit. On the dates of the said karars, the said land was subject to a kanom in favou...
In Re: L., a First Grade Pleader, Rajam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad672; 172Ind.Cas.136
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a petition filed on behalf of Mr. L., a First Grade Pleader, who has hitherto been practising in the Court of the District Munsif of Rajam. In accordance with the usual custom his sanad has been sent to the High Court for renewal for the year 1937, and the High Court on January 18 last, passed an order in its administrative capacity under Rule 14 of the rules framed under the Legal Practitioners Act, XVIII of 1879 deferring the renewal of his sanad. On receipt of this order, the District Munsif naturally refused to allow Mr. L. to continue to practice in his Court until his sanad was renewed. The reasons for the issue of the order are as follows: It appears that in February 1936, a client of Mr. L. filed a complaint against him accusing him of professional misconduct in connection with' an execution petition which the client: wished him to conduct on his behalf, That complaint was to the District Munsif of Rajam who in June 1936, without having examined any witn...
Y. Kothandarama Reddy and ors. Vs. Kandra Balarami Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad713; (1937)2MLJ802
ORDERKing, J.1. This case arises out of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on the 8th January, 1936. The first accused is the guardian of two minor judgment-debtors against whom a decree-holder had obtained an order for attachment of a standing crop. On the 8th January, an amin was being sent from the District Court to harvest the crops which had been attached. The accusation in the complaint, which was filed by a surety in whose custody the attached crop had been left, was to the effect that the first accused, the guardian of the minors and the two lessees of the property had begun to harvest the crop before the amin came and refused to desist from their unlawful action when the amin arrived and protested. The complaint was laid under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence was over and a charge was framed under that section, and when all the prosecution witnesses except one had been further cross-examined after the charge, the accused raised the tech...
Pregada Balanagu Vs. Krosuru Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad578
ORDERKing, J.1. I do not think the Sub. divisional Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction of Government was necessary in this case under Section 197, Criminal P.C. In sending his report under Section 45, the Village Munsif is not acting in his capacity as Magistrate, being there called specifically a Village Headman, nor is he a public servant removable only by or with the sanction of a Local Government: see Pichai Pillai v. Balasundara Mudali AIR 1935 Mad 442. But the Sub-divisional Magistrate might well have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 after putting a few questions to the complainant. It is a complaint filed five months after the police investigation was over, and a mere glance at it is enough to show that the complainant has made no serious attempt at stating any facts which if proved in evidence would support a conviction. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere and dismiss this petition....
Parvataneni Lakshmayya Vs. the Official Receiver of Krishna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ11
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The only question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the insolvent is an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 60(1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Code and this petition has been posted before a Bench of three Judges because in Muthuvenkatarama Reddi v. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 227 Devadoss and Waller, JJ., took the view that in order to constitute an agriculturist within the meaning of that section agriculture must be the sole source of living whereas in Gopalam Garu v. Adusumilly Gopalakrish nays Garu : AIR1927Mad342 Devadoss and Wallace, JJ., held that in order to constitute an agriculturist it is enough if his chief source of income is agriculture. These decisions are obviously in conflict.2. In the present case, the facts are that the petitioner's income was derived from agriculture, as a mahazadar enjoying kists paid by his ryots, from a motor business and a tobacco trade. He became...
In Re: Athappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ60
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench, namely:2. (1) Is the whole or any part of the following statement:He said that at about 11 P.M. on the night of 26th March, 1936, himself and Gurunatha Goundan, son of Kanda Goundan of Erangattur, together killed Sennimalai Goundan alias Sottayan by gagging his mouth with cloth and throttling his neck with hands and also by putting a rope and pressing it,.... that that night... they got two bottles of illicit arrack by paying Rs. 2 to Gandhi Ranga Royan of Kallipatti who got it from some other place,... that a small quantity was left over in one bottle only, that... (they) buried (1) the empty bottle, (2) a rope and the cloth gag in a dung hill next to the cattle-shed in the same compound and the other bottle with some arrack in a heap of mud near a log of wood in corner of the compound east of the choultry at Kallipatti and that he would go and take them and produce them. This is kno...
Swaminatha Odayar Vs. S. Gopalaswami Odayar and 17 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ100
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. An objection which ought to have been taken in limine, has been raised at the closing stage of a long argument, to the effect that the appeal, is incompetent on account of certain parties not having been added as respdndents. We do not at present propose to set out the history of this long-drawn litigation, for, it is sufficient to state just a few facts in order to deal with the contention raised. This was a partition suit commenced nearly two decades ago and the members of the family to which the action relates, owned considerable properties when it started, but they have since been reduced, with the exception of the sixth defendant, to such straits, that some are represented by the assignees in insolvency, and the others, by the trustees under a composition deed. The only solvent member now of the family is the sixth defendant and he is the appellant before us. There are several memoranda of objections in the nature of cross-appeals which have been filed. The ...
Palkudi Kuppal Naicker Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad555; 173Ind.Cas.375
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I agree with the lower Court, that the plaintiff's suit ought to fail, but I am not prepared to agree with its reasoning. There is the finding here, which is not attacked, that the plaintiff is the step-sister's son of Akka Naicker, the last maleholder. His widows are still alive and in view of the recent Full Bench decision in Appeal No. 443 of 1930, there can be no doubt that the case is governed by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amend-ment) Act, 1929; but it is unnecessary to decide whether a step-sister's son is among the heirs intended to be benefited under Section 2 of that Act. I proceed upon the assumption that while a sister's son cornea within that section, a step-sister's son does not; but how does that make any difference here? Under the Hindu law, as unaffected by and independent of the Act mentioned above, a step-sister's son, though a remote heir, is in the line of succession: Subbaraya v. Kylasa (1892) 15 Mad 300 and Mulla's Hindu Law, Edn. 8, p. 4...
Swaminatha Odayar Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad741
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. An objection which ought to have been taken in limine has been raised at the closing stage of a long argument to the effect that the appeal is incompetent on account of certain parties not having been added as respondents. We do not at present propose to sot out the history of this long-drawn litigation, for it is sufficient to state just a few facts in order to deal with the contention raised. This was a partition suit commenced nearly two decades ago and the members of the family to which the action relates owned considerable properties when it started, but they have since been reduced, with the exception of defendant 6, to such straits that some are represented by the assignees in insolvency and the others by the trustees under a composition deed. The only solvent member now of the family is defendant 6 and he is the appellant before us. There are several memoranda of objections in the nature of cross-appeals which have been filed. The principal contesting res...
Athappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad618; 171Ind.Cas.245
Beasley, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to Full Bench, viz.:(1) Is the whole or any part of the following statement: 'He said that at about 11 P.M. on the night of March 26, 1936, himself and Gurunatha Goundan, son of Kanda Goundan of Erangattur, together killed Sennimalai Goundan alias Sottayan by gauging his mouth with cloth and throttling his neck with hands and also by putting a rope and pressing it...that night...they got two bottles of illicit arrack by paying Rs. 2 to Gandhi Ranga Royan of Kallippatti who got it from some other place...that a small quantity was left over in one bottle only, that...(they) buried (1) the empty bottle, (2) a rope and the cloth, gag in a dunghill next to the cattls shed in the same compound and the other bottle with some arrack in a heap of mud near a log of wood in a corner of the compound east to the choultry at Kallippatti and that he would go and take them and produce them. This is known to us,' alleged to have been made by ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »