Chennai Court March 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.
Shanmuga Pandaram Vs. K. Ponnuswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad714; (1938)2MLJ160
ORDERHorwell, J.1. In 1936 the Adi Dravidas of Peralam began to conduct Processions in honour of Sri Thiruvalluvar, to the annoyance of the caste residents of the village. On the occasion I which this Criminal Revision Case relates they wished to take a procession through the four streets along which the car is taken at the annual car festival and through which the caste Hindus conduct their procession. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Nannilam, and the Additional District Magistrate of fan ore were of opinion that the Adi Dravidas were putting forth fresh claims and thereby causing annoyance to the residents of Peralam who have houses on the processional route; and an order under Section 144 was therefore passed.2. Although the order under Section 144 has long ago worked itself out; yet it is urged for the petitioner that this petition should be considered on its merits, as otherwise the same situation will arise in subsequent years. There can be no doubt that the Adi-Dravidas have a ci...
Pandarathil Abdulla of Androth Island Vs. Komalath Thanga Koya of Andr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad855; (1938)2MLJ447
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Collector of Malabar dated 20th May, 1933, dismissing the appeal from the order of the Amin of Androth Island dated 12th March, 1933.2. It appears there was a petition filed by the Koyas of the Island against the petitioner and another person on the 12th March, 1933, bringing to the notice of the Amin that the petitioner, who is a Melacheri, had agreed to hire a boat and register the agreement of hire contrary to the long prevailing custom in the Island. The Koyas alleged that the new departure threatened by the petitioner was likely to cause great hardship to them and would give rise to grave disturbances. The prayer in the petition was:We therefore request that the Court may be pleased to cancel the agreement regarding the chartering of the odam and order that the Melache-ries should not sail with odams as owners of goods.3. It appears therefore that the application was made to the Court of the Amin with a view to ...
The Nedungadi Bank, Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Malabar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad710; (1938)1MLJ767
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Kunnath Sankaran Ezhuthassan found a bangle, sold it for Rs. 1,000, and deposited portions of that sum in three banks. The Courts below have held that the Crown is entitled to recover the sums of money deposited in the banks; and the question raised in these petitions is whether those findings are correct.2. The argument of the learned Sessions Judge is that under Section 4 of the Treasure Trove Act a person who finds property valued at more than ten rupees is bound to give notice to the Colector, that under Section 20 of the Act such property vests in the Government, that as the same rule would apply to any property into which the treasure trove had been converted, it would follow that the money realised by the sale of the bangle also belonged to the Government, and that therefore the money that was deposited with the three banks is Government money which the Government is entitled to recover. I think the learned Sessions Judge was right in saying that the produce o...
In Re: Syed Mustafa Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad910; (1938)2MLJ382
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The three petitioners have been convicted under Sections 178 and 339 of the District Municipalities Act for failing to comply with an order of the Municipality requiring them to metal the streets and lanes constructed on their site and to do other things undertaken to be done by the petitioners when the issue of a licence was sanctioned to them by the Municipality to erect houses and to sell them.2. The petitioners jointly petitioned the Municipality to grant them sanction to sell certain plots of land as building sites and they undertook to metal the roads, cut side drains, and to make provision for scavenging lanes. Roads were laid but nothing else was done. On 24th February, 1937, notices were sent to the petitioners requiring them to do what they had undertaken to do on pain of prosecution. The petitioners soon afterwards wrote to the Municipality offering to give up the roads and making them over to the Municipality. The Municipal Council sanctioned the taking o...
Siddavarupu Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Rachaputi Ramalingam Setty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad929; (1938)2MLJ790
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals may conveniently be dealt with together, as was done in the Court below. In May, 1929, the appellant, who was the first defendant in both the suits, became a partner with the plaintiff in a mica mining business which the latter had been carrying on for some years. When the plaintiff started that business in 1924, he had two partners, namely, the second defendant, who was entitled to a four annas share and P.W. 3 who was entitled to a six annas share. The second defendant was only a working partner while plaintiff and P.W. 3 were the capitalist partners. Among the lands which they took on lease for the purpose of opening mica mines in connection with that business, was a block of land obtained under Ex. B for a term of five years from 7th October, 1925. On a portion of the land covered by this lease, they had opened a mine which they named The Nityakalyani Mine. For one reason or another, it was not possible for some years to work this mine to the best ...
Atla Veeraswamy Reddi Vs. Gunisetty Venkataswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: 175Ind.Cas.874
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Mr. Ch. Sambaiya who sigaed the judgment and the proceedings of November 10, 1937, seems not to have been present at the hearing of the other witness on October 23, 1937.2. A conviction is illegal if the Magistrates who signed the judgment did not hear all evidence.3. The conviction has, therefore, to be set aside. In view of the petty nature of the offence and the weak complainant to the property, a re-trial is not necessary.4. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the conviction set aside....
Machingal Potte Veetu Alias Thakke Veettil Seetha Neithyar and ors. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad564; (1939)2MLJ697
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 28 to 43 are the appellants. The second appeal arises out of a suite instituted by the plaintiffs to recover arrears of maintenance. 2. Seetha and Pattu were two members of a tarwad called the Machingal Pottai Veettu tarwad. The second defendant is the son of Pattu. In 1866-67 Valia Parvathi and Kunju Menon (a female and a male), two children of Seetha, were adopted by Pangi Menon Kandi Achan who was the sole remaining member in his tarwad known as Tekkai Veettu tarwad. The plaintiffs in the present suit are the descendants of Valia Parvathi through her daughter Seetha (see the Genealogical tree given in paragraph 9 of the Munsiffs judgment). The suit properties cover 20 items. Of these, items 1 to 12 are Putravakasam properties granted to Seetha, the mother of Valia Parvathi, by her husband Chathu Achan who ultimately became the Palghat Raja, items 14 to 20 belong to the Pottai Veettu tarwad. Admittedly the plaintiffs are membe...
Chimakurthi Venkatarathnam Vs. Nooney Sambasiva Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad525; (1939)1MLJ237
Varadachariar, J.1. These two appeals may be conveniently dealt with together as the main question is common to both cases. It happened that the suits out of which these appeals arise were heard by different Judges who have come to opposite conclusions on that question. A.S. No. 8 of 1934 arises out of a suit (O.S. No. 11 of 1931) to enforce a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed on 21st December, 1923, by the first defendant for himself and as guardian of his minor younger brother the second defendant and his minor son the third defendant. The mortgagee being dead, the plaintiff, his son issuing to recover the balance due under the mortgage, some amounts having already been paid in part payment of the mortgage debt. A.S. No. 222 of 1934 arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the younger brother, who is the second defendant in the other case, against the elder brother who is the first defendant in the other case and against certain alienees from the elder brother.2. The only ques...
In Re: Komma Harichandra Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad742; (1938)2MLJ222
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Pulivendla under Sections 147, 341 and 342, Indian Penal Code, and the sixth petitioner under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, also; and they were fined Rs. 10 each on each count. The convictions and sentences were confirmed by the appellate Court.2. There was first an enquiry by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Pulivendla and the accused were discharged. The matter was then taken in revision to the Sessions Judge, who thought that the order of discharge was improperly passed and ordered a further inquiry into the matter under Section 436, Criminal t Procedure Code. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate decided to summon the prosecution witnesses already examined; and upon being told by the Sub-Inspector conducting the prosecution that it was not necessary to examine the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate did not do so. He presumably considered the evidence already on record and then framed a charge. The tr...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad838; (1938)2MLJ244
1. These appeals have arisen out of two suits filed against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the refund of money collected in the shape of irrigation cess under the provisions of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act. There were five plaintiffs but they all belong to one family and they represent the Inamdar of Rajapudukudi. It will therefore be convenient to speak of 'the plaintiff' in the singular. The plaintiff's inam village Rajapudukudi is irrigated by a tank which receives its supply from a jungle stream called Uppar. There is a supply channel from the Uppar to the tank which for three quarters of its length runs through the Government land and for the other quarter through the inam land; in order to divert the water along the channel a stone anicut has been in existence across the Uppar from time immemorial. In 1888 the Inamdar took the permission of the Government to replace the then existing anicut which is described in the documents as an anicut built of rubble stones...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »