Chennai Court December 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.
Nallangal Vs. Arasappappillaipatti Co-operative Society by Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad779
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises in consequence of an attachment of a property made at the instance of the respondent company on the ground that it was liable to be sold in a decree passed in its favour against one Karuppan Samban. His widow Nallangal objected to the attachment and claimed that the property belonged to her. This objection prevailed in the executing Court, but the order was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul on appeal. Aggrieved by this order Nallangal has preferred the present appeal. The pattah in regard to the land attached by the decree-holder was issued by the Government in favour of the widow on 25th March 1933 (Ex. I). But it appears that a darkhast for this land was originally made by her husband Karuppan Samban on 19th July 1931 during his lifetime (Ex. A). Before passing any final orders on this application, the tahsildar called upon Karuppan Samban first to deposit a sum of Rs. 37-9-5 for the value of survey stones and of the trees gro...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. T. Sellamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1938
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ761
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal on a charge under Section 206 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was the first defendant in a small cause suit, his son being the second defendant. A decree was passed for Rs. 231 in favour of the plaintiff P.W. 4, here against the accused, the suit being dismissed as against the son. In execution of the decree a cow belonging to the accused was attached. A claim petition was filed by the wife of the accused. The claim was allowed on 14th May, 1936, on the undertaking given by the accused that he would not for three months thereafter alienate a piece of land owned by him. On the 25th May, 1936, the accused executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property covered by this undertaking in favour of his son, the exonerated defendant. After various proceedings this Court filed a complaint under Section 476(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charging the accused with an offence under Section 206, of the Indian Penal Code. ...
Crown Prosecutor Vs. T. Sellamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad271
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal on a charge under Section 206, I.P.C. The accused was defendant 1 in a small cause suit, his son being defendant 2. A decree was passed for Rs. 231 in favour of the plaintiff - P.W. & here - against the accused the suit being dismissed as against the son. In execution of the decree a cow belonging to the accused was attached. A claim petition was filed by the wife of the accused. The claim was allowed on 14th May 1936 on the undertaking given by the accused that he would not for three months thereafter alienate a piece of land owned by him. On 25th May 1936, the accused executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property covered by this undertaking in favour of his son the exonerated defendant. After various proceedings this Court filed a complaint under Section 476(1), Criminal P.C., charging the accused with an offence under Section 206, I.P.C. The defence to the criminal complaint was, firstly, a denial of the undertaking...
T. Pr. Sm. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. V. Rm. Sevugan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad505
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the final decree in a suit for the taking of the accounts of a partnership business carried on in Mandalay under the V. B.M. Vilasam in which the parties to the suit were partners. The plaintiff and defendant 2 are the sons of one Ramanathan Chetti and both of them together are entitled to a half share in the profits of the business. Defendant 1 is Ramanath's sister's son and had also married Ramanatha's wife's sister. He was entitled to the other half share of the profits. But it is admitted that Ramanatha alone contributed capital to the business and that Ramanatha was entitled to take interest in respect of that capital. The firm was dissolved by a notice Ex. A, dated 27th May 1927.2. In pursuance of the direction given in the preliminary decree accounts were taken by a commissioner and after deciding some of the objections raised in connexion with the commissioner's report the lower Court has passed a decree directing defendant 1 to pay i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›