Chennai Court January 1938 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.
T.M. Subramanyan Tirumurupu and ors. Vs. T.E. Naraina Tirumurupu and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad553; (1938)1MLJ710
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara directing attachment of the shares of the petitioners in the property of the tarwad of which they are the junior members in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 37 of 1931 on the file of the same Court obtained against them for their personal debts. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that whatever might have been the law before the passing of the Marumakkathayam Act of 1933, after the passing of that Act, their interest is attachable by virtue of Section 38 of the said act. This view is canvassed by Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon. His contentions are that under the Marumakkathayam law, by which the appellants are governed, there was no interest of the appellants in the property capable of attachment, that the Act has not in any way effected an alteration of the law in this respect, that the only right which a junior member has is a claim for partition under Section 38 if he fulfil...
V.P. Krishnan Vs. Payankalath Narayanan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad555; (1938)1MLJ715
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam confirming the order of the District Munsiff of Ottapalam dismissing the execution petition for attachment and sale of the share of the respondent in the property of the tarwad to which he belonged. The petitioner obtained a decree in S.C.S. No. 382 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsiff of Ottapalam on 29th November, 1933, against the respondent on a personal debt incurred by him. In execution of the same the respondent's share in the tarwad property, which is stated to be one-ninth, was attached on 28th August, 1934. A claim was preferred on behalf of the tarwad on 10th September, 1934, objecting to the attachment. While the execution petition and the claim petition were both pending, four out of the five members of the tarwad presented a petition to the Sub-Collector of Malappuram under Section 43 of the Marumakkathayam Act for registering the tarwad as impartible an...
Vella Veeran Chetti Vs. V. Veeran Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad727; (1938)1MLJ750
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This matter arises out of a reference made by the learned District Munsiff of Melur for a decision on the question whether a plaintiff is entitled to execute a decree awarding, without directing an enquiry, mesne profits since the date of the institution of the suit without payment of Court-fee. The suit was for recovery of certain immoveable property and mesne profits for a period prior to the date of the institution of the suit (13th November, 1926) and also subsequent thereto. The Court by its decree dated 23rd October, 1929, awarded Rs. 60 for profits prior to suit and also awarded profits from the date of suit until delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 60 per annum. It was carried in appeal both to the District Court and the High Court and ultimately confirmed. The decree of the High Court is dated the 9th September, 1935. The present execution application out of which this reference arises was filed on the 21st November, 1935, praying for delivery of ...
In Re: Periaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad524
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. One of these petitions is to set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the petition presented by the accused praying that the complaint against him should be dismissed and he should be acquitted because there was no valid complaint against him as contemplated by Section 223, Local Boards Act; in the other petition the order sought to be revised declined to low the case to be withdrawn as prayed for by the section officer who filed the complaint on the ground that he had no power to withdraw the case as the prosecution was sanctioned by the President, District Board. It is clear from this statement of the facts that both the parties, namely the prosecution and the accused desire to put an end to the case but the Magistrate without giving any other reason than that the section officer had no power to withdraw the complaint; has declined to put an end to the case according to the desire of both the parties. The Sub-Magistrate treated the section officer ...
In Re: Allah Baksh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad567
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. From the circumstances reported by the District Magistrate, it is obvious that the sentences in the two cases of detention in the Borstal School in C.C. Nos. 21 and 22 of 1937 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, should not have been ordered to run consecutively. These sentences of detention cannot be regarded as equivalent for all purposes to sentences of imprisonment, though for purposes of appeal and revision they are to be deemed as sentences of imprisonment according to Section 20, Borstal Schools Act. The fact that it was considered necessary by the Legislature to say in so many words that for purposes of appeal and revision a sentence Under Section 8, that is to say, a sentence of detention, shall be deemed to be a sentence of imprisonment shows that otherwise they could not be regarded as equivalent. The object of detention in a Borstal School being to reform the offender and as the Magistrate has got sufficient discretion to ...
Noone Varadarajan Chetty Vs. Vutukuri Kanakiah.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad546; [1939]7ITR331(Mad)
BURN, J. - In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income-tax return is admissible, according to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, under section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act. I am however unable to agree that the Income-tax Officer is not subject to the process of the Court; on the contrary he is subject to every process of the Court, but under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act lays a prohibition on the Court; it does not confer any exemption on the Income-tax Officer.There is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed....
Penumatsa Ranga Razu of Vempa and anr. Vs. Sree Rajah Kandregula Srini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad654; (1938)1MLJ453
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These revision cases arise out of an order passed by the Joint Magistrate of Narsapur Division on the 17th June, 1937, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding a dispute about a large extent of land which was till recently jungle or waste but has since been included in an irrigation project and has consequently increased in value. The dispute was between the Zamindar of Gazzavaram and Kalipatnam Estates and Mr. Addepalli Venkataraman, the first respondent in the Court below, who describes himself as a Barrister of the Inns of Court at Dublin and an Advocate of this Court and others who claim under the first respondent. The first respondent himself claimed the land in dispute under a document which according to him is a perpetual lease executed in his favour by the petitioner Zamindar in 1923. The Magistrate found that actual possession was with the petitioner, and passed orders declaring that the petitioner is in possession and forbidding all ...
Noor Mohammad and anr. Vs. Mohamad Kareem and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad502; (1938)1MLJ443
1. The order of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. It is not permissible for the Court to refuse to make a full enquiry. Under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, where there is contention the proceedings must take the form of a regular suit according to the Civil Procedure Code. There was certainly contention in this case and the learned District Judge could not proceed to decide the matter in a summary fashion, leaving his decision subject to modification in a suit to be filed afterwards.2. We allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned District Judge. The case must be restored to file and dealt with according to law after directing the appellants and the second respondent to file duly stamped caveats. Costs of this appeal to abide and follow the result....
Sri Sri Sri Nirvani Mahant Gomati Doss Bhavaji, Disciple of Hira Das B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad614; (1938)1MLJ561
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing a suit instituted by the appellant under Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. As the lower Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, without going into the merits, the only point for consideration at this stage is whether the suit is so barred.2. The last clause of Section 63 of the Act provides that the trustee or any person having interest may within six months of the date of the publication of the order complained against institute a suit in the Court to modify or set aside such order.3. In the present case, the Board framed a scheme on 31st August, 1929, and the present suit was instituted only on 4th July, 1932. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that it was the plaintiff's duty to have filed a suit within six months of the publication of the scheme framed on 31st August, 1929, and has accordingly held that the suit is barred. But he has not taken into account the fact that...
Devarinti Dasi Reddi Annaji Chinnappa Reddi and ors. Vs. Dasari Venkob ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad489
1. The learned District Judge, was in error in holding that the creditor should prove the debtor's inability to pay his debts. The creditor need do no more than prove his right to present the petition and the alleged act of insolvency and then adjudication must follow unless the Court is satisfied by the debtor that he is satisfied to pay his debts (Section 25 (1) Provincial Insolvency Act). This appeal is accordingly allowed; the order of the learned District Judge is set aside and the insolvency petition restored to file for disposal according to law. The appellants will recover the costs from the estate....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »