Chennai Court November 1938 Judgments
Mandavalli Satyanarayanamurthi Vs. Kotha Manikyala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad265
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Joint Magistrate that a partner cannot be convicted of criminal breach of trust under any circumstances is erroneous and the order of acquittal cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and there will be a retrial in accordance with law by such other Magistrate aa the District Magistrate may direct....
Tag this Judgment!Panangipalli Suryanarayanacharyulu Vs. Ravi Narasimhaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad360; (1939)1MLJ268
1. This matter arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Razole for specific performance of a contract of lease entered into with the petitioner, for possession of the properties, and for the recovery of mesne profits. The property in suit had belonged to the petitioner's father who in May, 1913, granted a lease of it for twenty years to the second and third respondents and to the fathers of the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. The lessor died sometimes before 1929 and the property devolved on the petitioner. On the 2nd November, 1929, the petitioner granted a lease of the properties to the first respondent for twenty years, the period to commence from 2nd June, 1935. A deed of lease was drawn up, duly executed and registered. The first respondent averred in his plaint that the petitioner had in collusion with the other defendants (respondents 2 to 15 and one Malay Venkataratnam, the fifteenth defendant) put the defendants into posses...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvabhotla Thotapalle Chendikamba Vs. Kanala Indrakanti Viswanathamay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad446; (1939)1MLJ227
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed, Ex. XI dated 25th March, 1926, executed by the second defendant as the agent of his daughter the first defendant, the widow of one Krishnayya deceased, in favour of the third defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and the fourth defendant after the lifetime of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the fourth defendant claim to be the next reversioners to the estate of the said Krishnayya on the death of the first defendant and their case is that the sale was not for a purpose binding on the estate. The main defence is that the husband of the first defendant left a will in and by which he bequeathed all his property absolutely to the first defendant. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant are not the next reversioners and that the suit is not maintainable, and in any event, the sale was supported by necessity. Both the Courts concurrently found against ...
Tag this Judgment!Yellavajjhula Surayya Vs. Tummalapalli Mangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1941Mad345
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant sued for recovery of possession of certain properties on the footing that as reversionary heir to the estate of one Surayya who died sometime between 1880 and 1888 he had become entitled to possession on the death of Surayya's widow on 20th September 1929. The plaint schedules specified several items of properties. As regards some of them the lower Court has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. As regards other items the suit has been dismissed. The present appeal is concerned with items 1 to 6 of the plaint, Schedule A and items 1 and 2 of the plaint, Schedule B. Alternatively, there is a claim for items 22 to 24 of the plaint, Schedule A if the Court should hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession of items 1 to 6.2. The claim to items 1 and 2 of Schedule B may be briefly disposed of. The lower Court found that the plaintiff had not proved that these items belonged to the last male holder. There is only the general assertion o...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Shanmugasundaram Pillai Vs. A. Manicka Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad368; (1939)1MLJ412
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an application to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 44 of 1938 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tiruvallur instituted by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner charged the son-in-law of the respondent with theft of certain documents and records from the Bhavanandam Academy and in the affidavit filed in support of the application for a search warrant and the sworn statement, the petitioner alleged that some of the articles had been secreted in the house of the respondent. A search warrant was issued and the house of the respondent was searched. Nothing was found in the house and the son-in-law was ultimately discharged. The complaint of defamation is founded on the allegations in the affidavit and sworn statement that some of the articles were secreted in the house of the respondent and those allegations are stated to be false. The offence committed ...
Tag this Judgment!Mottai Meera Alias Sheik Abdul Kadir Rowther Vs. Chinna Sheik Abdul Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad471; (1939)1MLJ528
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This is an application for relief under Madras Act IV of 1938, filed by the first defendant in a suit for partition in a Mahomedan family.2. It was found in the main case that the first defendant who was the eldest child of his father and a major at the time of the father's death entered into possession and management of the father's property at his death and that as he had a minor brother and a minor step-brother and step-sister he was found to have held and managed the property on behalf of all the co-owners. In 1925 there were disputes in the family and the first defendant left the family house and lived elsewhere. It was also found that during his period of management, the first defendant had collected outstandings due to the father's estate and the income due from the common property of the family. In 1929 the plaintiff who is the first defendant's step-brother instituted a suit for division and recovery of his 2/7th share. A decree was given in plaintiff'...
Tag this Judgment!Pathuma Bibi and ors. Vs. Muthuswami Chettiar, Minor by Guardian Nalla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ907
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in this petition are the heirs of one Pichaikanni Rowther who was sought to be adjudicated insolvent on an application by a creditor who is the respondent in this petition. The debtor died during the pendency of the petition and his heirs were brought on record. There was a long delay before the trial began and after five witnesses had been examined on the side of the petitioning creditor the parties appear to have come to an agreement which is recorded in the following terms:If the counter-petitioners pay the petitioner Rs. 1,100 from the estate of the Pichaikanni Rowther towards the amount due for decree and costs vagaira in O.S. No. 385 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur, within 16-2-1937 the decree must be deemed to be discharged, and the petition stands automatically dismissed. If the amount is not paid as above within the period as aforesaid, the petitioner shall be entitled to realise the entire amount due under the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri and ors. Vs. Rao Sahib Pattath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ867
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of the plaint Siva temple called Vatakketath by the plaintiffs who constitute the board of trustees of the Tiruvangad Devaswom appointed by the decree in O.S. No. 8 of 1925 on the file of the District Court of North Malabar. The basis of the claim is that this Siva temple is, a shrine subordinate to the Sri Rama temple of the Devaswom and situate in the same compound but the defendants who are the archakas of the Siva temple have set up a hostile title thereto alleging that they own it. The main defence is that the plaint temple does not belong to the Tiruvangad Devaswom and it is not a subordinate shrine as alleged in the plaint. The defendants further pleaded that the plaint temple belongs to their illom in jenm right and their illom has, been in exclusive possession of the plaint temple to the knowledge of and against the trustees of the Tiruvangad Devaswom. They also pleaded that the suit was barr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalagarla Sanyasiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad284
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The definition of 'explosive' in Section 4, Explosives Act, is wide enough to include electric sparklets and the exemption of 'toy fireworks' was removed by the amendment of the rules in 1917. The conviction is therefore correct but in view of the order of forfeiture, the fine is excessive. It is therefore reduced to Rs. 25 and the excess of fine if levied will be refunded-Otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri and ors. Vs. Pattath Ramunni Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad208
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of the plaint Siva temple called, Vatakketath by plaintiffs who constitute the board of trustees of the Tiruvangad devaswom appointed by the decree in O.S. No 8 of 1925 on the file of the District Court of North Malabar. The basis of the claim is that this Siva temple is a shrine subordinate to the Sri Rama temple of the devaswom and situate in the same compound but the defendants who are the archakas of the Siva temple have set up a hostile title thereto alleging that they own it. The main defence is that the plaint temple does not belong to the Tiruvangad devaswom and it is not a sub-ordinate shrine as alleged in the plaint. The defendants further pleaded that the plaint temple belongs to their illom in jenm right and their illom has been in exclusive possession of the plaint temple to the knowledge of and against the trustees of the Tiruvangad devaswom. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »