Chennai Court November 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.
Kayathan Roche Alias G.C. Roche Vs. K. Chinnayya Roche
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad435; (1939)1MLJ425
King, J.1. Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswamia Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 and Purayil Abdullah v. Subramanyan Pattar : (1936)71MLJ383 show that it is the substance of the relief claimed that must be looked to in questions of court-fee and jurisdiction. I certainly agree with the learned District Munsif, that plaintiff's real purpose in this suit is to get an adjudication on the sale deed to which he refers repeatedly in his plaint. The cases quoted against this view of the law, Veerappa Chettiar v. Arunachalam Chetti (1935) 43 L.W. 334 and Karaia Nachi Bivi v. Allapichai : (1937)1MLJ572 , are clearly distinguishable-the former because in it there was no dispute apparent as to title, and the latter because it deals only with the need to assume the truth of the facts asserted in a plaint. In my opinion therefore the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in his view that the plaint should be valued as if it were for an injunction and nothing else, and it is he and not the District Munsif who has juris...
District Magistrate Vs. K.C. Mammen Mapillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad120; (1939)2MLJ135
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide a matter referred under Rule 2 of the Rules applying to this Court in its appellate jurisdiction by Burn and Stodart, JJ., sitting as a Bench dealing with criminal cases. The matter involves the important question whether this Court has the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus as known to the English Common Law or whether its powers are confined in this respect to those conferred by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives authority to issue directions 'of the nature of a habeas corpus''. There are other questions involved in the reference and for their proper appreciation it is necessary to set out the course of events.2. The respondents are the directors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited, a company registered under the laws of the State of Travancore. A petition for the compulsory winding up of the company was recently granted by this Court and official liquidat...
Narayana Mudali and anr. Vs. Peria Kalathi Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad783; (1939)2MLJ296
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants were defendants in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution arising out of an application which they preferred to the Magistrate against the plaintiffs and others praying the Magistrate to take proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The trouble arose out of a dispute between two sections of Sengundars with reference to the conduct of a festival managed by their community in the village temple. The appellants belong to the minority faction, which, owing to dissensions, had refused to pay its subscriptions to the funds out of which the festival is financed. As a consequence of this refusal, the majority faction, represented by the plaintiffs in this case, refused to allow the appellants' party certain privileges at the festival. The one with which we are now concerned was the privilege of making an offering known as Deeparadhana before the God, and having it returned intact after it had been offered. Although the appellants asse...
Delhi Bather Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Food Inspector C.P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ169
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of an Oilman Stores in the Moore Market and he has been convicted under Section 5, Clause (1)(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act of 1918 for offering for sale butter containing more than 20 per cent, of water. The butter was offered for sale in sealed tins in the state in which it was purchased by the petitioner from Lord's Butter Company and the evidence of the Assistant Manager of the Lord's Diary Farm shows that the extra moisture must have got unavoidably admixed in the process of the manufacture of the butter. Proviso (ii) to Section 5 provides that no offence under that section shall be deemed to have been committed in such cases and the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Narayana Mudali and anr. Vs. Periya Kalathi Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad494; (1939)1MLJ199
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals both relate to claims made by the appellants who represent the minority section of the Senguntha community in a village, to establish rights of a religious or quasi-religious nature in a village temple. It is common ground that the temple is a public temple with an endowment from public funds, but that the Senguntha community performs certain festivals therein, financing them by contributions levied from the community in proportion to their means. There also appears to be no doubt that, owing to factions in the community, the plaintiffs discontinued their contributions and by way of retaliation, the majority excluded them from certain religious privileges.2. Second Appeal No. 1180 relates to an observance known as Kappu Kattu. Second Appeal No. 38 relates to another observance known as Diparathana. Kappu Kattu is a rite whereby the unmarried boys of the caste go through a sort of initiation which consists in the tying of a sacred string round the wrist...
Rai Sahib C.N. Maduranayakam Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad386; (1939)1MLJ176
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of great public importance. The Court is called upon to decide what are the powers of the Government with regard to the distribution of water in two reservoirs, or tanks as they are usually called in India from which the city of Madras receives its water-supply. One tank is known as the Cholavaram tank, and the other as the Red Hills tank. They lie close to one another, some fifteen miles from the city of Madras. Before 1870 when the Government undertook a scheme to increase the storage capacity of these tanks with the primary object of supplying water to Madras, the water in the tanks was used merely for the purpose of irrigating lands in the vicinity. Near to the tanks in the river Cortelliar, but before the scheme was carried out there was no connection between the river and the tanks and the level of the water in them depended on the rain which fell in the catchment area. The evidence, however, discloses that the water...
Khadar Mohideen Sahib Vs. C. Nagu Bai Alias Seetha Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ730
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the holder of a money decree or an equitable mortgagee has preferential rights in the profits of mortgaged properties when a receiver has been' appointed at the instance of the holder of the money decree in execution proceedings and also appointed to act in a suit instituted by the mortgagee to enforce his mortgage. In order to understand the position it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. In Suit No. 422 of 1929 on the Original Side of this Court the first respondent detained a decree on a promissory note against the members of a joint Hindu family consisting of two brothers, Aiya Mudaliar and Muthu Mudaliar, and Sambanda Mudaliar, the son of Aiya Mudaliar. On the 16th March, 1929, certain immovable properties belonging to the defendants in the suit were mortgaged to the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited, by the deposit of the title deeds. In 1930 the Bank sued in Suit No. 537 of 1930 on the Original...
In Re: Poulose Mathen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad263; (1939)2MLJ169
Burn, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, on behalf of four persons who have been arrested on the warrants issued by the Resident, Madras States. Section 491(1) empowers this High Court, whenever it thinks fit, to direct (a) that a person within the limits of its Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law and (b) that persons illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within such limits be set at liberty. The contention on behalf of the four prisoners is that they have been illegally or improperly detained in custody and that therefore they should be brought up before this Court in order that they may be released. This application was made on the 21st October, 1938, and was supported by an affidavit sworn by Poulose Mathen, son of one of the prisoners, in these terms:2. I Poulose Mathen, son of Mr. C.P. Mathen, aged 21, residing at Marble Hall, 25, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, M...
Nidasanametla Venkata Seshayya Vs. the District Board Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ82
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A suit for specific performance was filed on behalf of the District Board, East Godavari, against one N. Venkataseshayya in the following circumstances: The plaintiff (District Board) advertised in the, Godavari District Gazette that a lease for cultivation of certain lands would be put to auction. It was to be for five years. The terms on which the lease was to be granted were notified in the Gazette. The auction was held on the 30th May, 1930, and the defendant being the higher bidder, the Board agreed to grant the lease to him. In pursuance of the contract, a muchilika was executed by the defendant and presented to the District Board. It was not registered. The defendant failed to make payment of the rent and on a suit having been filed for its recovery on behalf of the Board, an objection was taken that the lease was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and could not be relied upon by the Board. The Board then filed the present suit which was dismiss...
Joura Madhava Sahu (Dead) and anr. Vs. Telli Satrughana Sahu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad499; (1939)1MLJ473
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Court of the District Munsif of Berhampore. The plaintiff obtained a decree and it was confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge of Ganjam. It is against that decision that this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The only point argued on his behalf by Mr. Jagannadha Das is that the suit is barred by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. To appreciate this contention a few facts may be necessary. The plaintiff instituted a suit (O.S. No. 518 of 1928) in the District Munsif's Court of Berhampore against the defendant and his brother for arrears of rent due to him. The defendant instituted a suit (O.S. No. 365 of 1928) in the same Court for the recovery of an amount due on a promissory note executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. In both the suits consent decrees were passed for equal amounts on the 23rd April,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »