Chennai Court February 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.
The Board of Commissioner for the Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. Pidug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad134; (1939)1MLJ134
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board against a decree setting aside a scheme framed by the Hoard for the administration of an institution known as 'Sri Virlu Alaya' in Karampudi village, within the jurisdiction of the Guruzala District Munsif's Court. The Board framed a scheme on the footing that the institution was a 'temple' within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The plaintiff, who sometimes called himself the Dharmakartha of the institution, instituted the suit for a declaration that the institution, was not a temple within the meaning of the Act and that therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme in respect of its administration. The learned District Judge held that the worship carried on in the place was merely hero-worship and not religious worship and that the institution, was not therefore a 'temple' within the meaning of the Act. Hence this appeal.2. Though the parties have differed as to ...
Pangudaya Pillai and anr. Vs. Uthandiya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad774; (1938)2MLJ33
Stodart, J.1. The suit on which this second appeal arises was based on a promissory note executed by the first defendant. Second and third defendants - the present appellants - are the younger brothers of the first defendant. Plaintiff alleged that they were present when the money was lent and the note executed but this was not believed in the trial Court. Plaintiff further alleged that the first defendant was manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his brothers, the second and third defendants, that the note was to secure a loan which was contracted for the benefit of the family and that the three brothers continued undivided tip to the date of suit. It was found however at the trial that the family had become divided in 1920 the year after the execution of the note and further that the plaintiff had become aware of this change of status at least as early as 1924. Two main questions arose for decision:(1)Was the loan contracted for the benefit of the family?(2)Do the end...
The Sankara Mining Syndicate Ltd. by Its Managing Agent R. Pattabhiram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad749; (1938)2MLJ141
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore by the appellant against the Secretary of State for India in Council (the first respondent) and Yettigadda Audemma (the second respondent), for a declaration that an order of the Local Government granting a mining lease to Yettigadda Audemma is illegal and for a decree for specific performance of a contract which he alleged had been entered into between him and the Local Government for a lease of the area in suit. In 1903 the Local Government granted a mining lease of the area known as Survey No. 499 to one R.V. Kuppuswami Aiyar. The lessee subsequently transferred this lease to the appellant company. In 1904 the Local Government granted a mining lease in respect of the area known as Survey No. 500 to Kalappa Chetti, the husband of the second respondent. Kalappa Chetti is now dead and the lease of this area has vested in the second respondent. From the second respon...
Perumal Chettiar Vs. Kamakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad785; (1938)2MLJ189
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether a person who has lent money on a promissory note can sue to recover the debt apart from the note when the note embodies the terms of the contract with the borrower but is inadmissible in evidence owing to a defect in the stamping. In England the right to sue on the original consideration is recognised, and the same principle has been applied by some Judges in India, but Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the contract except the document itself, or secondary evidence where secondary evidence is admissible and other Judges have held that this section prohibits a suit on the original consideration. This Court, except in two cases to which I shall in due course refer, has held that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is a bar to a suit on the debt when the loan and the instrument are contemporaneous. Before turning to ex...
In Re: K.M.T.T. Kulandaivelu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad705; (1938)2MLJ266
ORDERHorwell, J.1. The petitioners were found in a small room of a building in Devakottai described as the 'Jubilee Club' with all the paraphernalia of gambling such as cards, coloured chips, beans, and cash and it has been found by both the Courts below that these persons were engaged in gaming in a 'common gaming house' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. Accused 1 to 12 were convicted under Section 9 of the Act of gaming in a 'common gaming house' and the 13th accused was convicted under Section 8, which punishes the opening, keeping, using or permitting to be used any common gaming house or conducting or assisting in conducting such, etc. The 13th accused contends that the building in which the gaming took place was not a common gaming house and that n any event the 13th accused was not the keeper of that gaming house.2. Most of the arguments have turned on the legal effect of Section 6 of the Gaming Act which is thatAny cards, dice, gaming table or clot...
Ar.L.N.Rm.Ar. Sevugan Chettiar Vs. Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijiya Raghunat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad612; (1938)1MLJ763
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. The lower Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. This plea of limitation is the only point for decision in the appeal. In the village of Kallal, in the Sivaganga estate, there is one portion belonging to a temple of which the Zamindar is the dharmakartha and the other portion which belongs to the plaintiffs' family has been set apart by them for certain charities and in that character has been under their management. During the survey operations carried on in the estate, the Survey Officer demarcated the boundary between the two portions in a manner to which the plaintiffs take exception. Hence this suit Under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, the suit has to be instituted within three years of the final publication of the survey demarcation, which in the present case took place on the 21st January, 1928. As the suit was instituted o...
Sundararajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. B. Papiah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad623; (1938)1MLJ686
Venkataramana Rao, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been referred to me in consequence of a difference of opinion between my learned brothers Burn, J. and Abdur Rahman, J. The point in controversy in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to attach and sell the village of Eroongaud Cottah in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 63 of 1933 obtained against the defendants. The suit which resulted in the decree was laid on a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 4 and the father of defendants 5 to 7. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded in the suit as the sons of the 1st defendant. In execution of the said decree an application was made to attach the suit property under Order 21, Rule 54 and have the same sold under Order 21, Rule 66. The defendants preferred objections both to the attachment and sale on the ground that the property is inalienable and therefore not liable to be attached and sold. -The said village was granted to one Sriram Singama Naick, a Poligar of th...
Thazhepeedikayil Veerankutti Haji Vs. the Crown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ618
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, South Malabar, for the murder of a Moplah woman and her son, a child of seven, on the 9th July, last.2. The woman whose name was Beema Umma had come to the house of the appellant in order to attend upon his wife during her confinement. The evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that the woman and her child went to bed in the house of the appellant on the night of the 9th July, and the next morning they were missing. Their dead bodies were discovered on the 22nd July buried in the compound of the appellant's house near the well. The lady doctor (P.W. 1) who made the post mortem examination on the 23rd was unable to say what the cause of death had been in either case owing to the advanced stage of de-composition which both bodies had reached. There was however no difficulty about the identification of the bodies.3. The evidence against the appellant was partly direct and partly circu...
In Re: Perne Maila Rai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad591
Burn, J.1. In my opinion there was evidence upon which the learned Joint Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge could properly rely in order to hold that the petitioner was habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace and is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. I cannot accept the contention of Mr. Jayarama Ayyar that the evidence of the police witnesses with regard to general repute should be excluded as inadmissible. The question what is a person's reputation is a question of fact. It can be spoken to by any one who knows what his general reputation is. The police officer who goes to the place where a particular person lives and who, makes enquiries to find out what his reputation is, is perfectly competent to speak in the witness box about the result of his enquiries. His evidence that the reputation of such and such a person is so and so is e...
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. S. Natesa Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad713; (1938)1MLJ517
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of West Tanjore dated 11th February, 1932, in O.S. No. 8 of 1929, a suit under Section 57 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act to cancel or modify a scheme framed by the Board for Sri Vriddhapureswarar Temple at Thirupunavasal. The suit was decreed and the scheme framed by the Board was set aside. The main ground on which the scheme was cancelled was that the provision in the scheme for the appointment of the third defendant as trustee contained in paragraph 3 of the scheme was illegal. That provision runs as follows:The said temple shall be under the control and management of a single trustee; and the present trustee Mr. A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar shall be first trustee under the scheme, and the trusteeship shall continue in him and the other heirs of his father late Chidambaram Chettiar so long as they pay an annual contribution of rupees three thousand which will be set apart for the thirupani work of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »