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.
A. Subramania Aiyar Vs. K.S. Venkatarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad599; (1939)1MLJ536
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the tenants of an inam village in the Tanjore District, for a declaration that the entry in the record of rights, published in the village on 22nd June, 1932, with reference to the rent payable by the ryots in respect of their holdings cannot be enforced. This publication was made in pursuance of a notice issued by the Sub-Collector of Kumbakonam on 10th June, 1932 (Ex. F) and that notice was given in pursuance of an order of the Board of Revenue (Ex. D), dated 6th May, 1932. It is this order of the Board of Revenue that is really challenged in the plaint. The order was passed by the Board in the course of proceedings taken under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act on an application made by the ryots for the preparation of a Record of Rights and for the settlement of rents in the village. The action is not one under Section 173 of the Act and it is not based on any of the grounds specified in Clause (3) of that se...
The Official Receiver Vs. Samudravijayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad509; (1939)1MLJ575
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Official Receiver of West Tanjore district. He represents the estate of one Ramappa Chettiar, an insolvent. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by Ramappa's son, Samudravijayan, for a declaration that his father has merely a life interest in certain immovable properties and for an injunction restraining the appellant from offering for sale more than the alleged life interest. He also sought a decree for partition of other properties. The properties in respect of which the plaintiff alleged his father has a life interest are described in Schedule A to the plaint and the properties in respect of which partition was sought in Schedules B and C. The suit succeeded so far as it concerned the properties described in Schedule A, but it was dismissed so far as it concerned the other properties. The appellant contends that the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam who tried the case was wrong in holding that Ramappa's inter...
In Re: Pedda Ramamuni Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad724; (1938)2MLJ41
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The Joint Magistrate reports that the petitioners demanded that the witnesses should be re-summoned and reheard but non-compliance with the demand is not an irregularity which vitiates the trial, vide Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the witnesses were further cross-examined before the Magistrate who decided the case. The petitioners cannot therefore be said to have been prejudiced by the refusal of the Joint Magistrate to re-summon and re-hear the witnesses, and the conviction cannot be set aside on this ground, vide Proviso (b) to Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No other ground was urged against the conviction nor is there any ground for interference with it in revision. But the occurrence took place in 1935 and the trial was protracted. The hurt caused was trivial and it is unnecessary to send the petitioners back to jail. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is therefore reduced to the period already undergone and oth...
Crown Prosecutor Vs. Doraiswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1938
Reported in: 1958CriLJ773
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There is no provision of law empowering the court to award compensation to an acquitted accused out of the fine imposed on a convicted accused and the order of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate is unsustainable. It is therefore set aside and the compensation, if paid, to the second accused will be recovered....
Thiagaraja Aiyar Vs. Narayanaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad684; (1938)1MLJ867
Horwill, J.1. The third defendant obtained the property of the late Govinda Pillai by way of surrender from his daughter; but he gave an undertaking that he would pay off certain debts. He mortgaged usufructuarily a substantial item of property in favour of the plaintiff; and the consideration for it was partly to discharge e debt of the late Gbvinda Pillai and partly to discharge the private debt of the third defendant. The first defendant claimed to be a creditor of the late Govinda Pillai; and he obtained a decree against the daughter of Govinda Pillai, that is, the second defendant, and against the third defendant. In execution of that money decree, he attached certain property said to belong to the late Govinda Pillai, including the property which had been usufructuarily mortgaged to the plaintiff. He alleged that this mortgage was nominal and false. The plaintiff resisted the attachment of this property; but was unsuccessful. He therefore filed this suit under Order 21, Rule 63, ...
Minor Ragunathan by His Mother and Next Friend Andalammal Vs. P.N. Rav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad765; (1938)2MLJ277
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question of the liability of a minor to return a sum of money paid to his guardian as earnest money in respect of a contract of sale of immovable property entered into by the guardian on his behalf. On the 20th August, 1931, Andalammal, the mother and guardian of the appellant, agreed to sell to the respondent the minor's shares in a village. The price agreed upon was Rs. 7,125 of which Rs. 500 was paid in advance. It is common ground that certain creditors of the estate were pressing for the payment of their debts and the intention was to sell the minor's interests in the village to discharge these liabilities. The sale was not completed, and the property was sold by the mother to a third party, the second defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises. The suit was for a decree for specific performance of the contract, but before the case came on for hearing it was realised that the Court could not grant this relief. An ...
In Re: Bojji Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad686; (1938)1MLJ871
Burn, J.1. As Waller, J., observed in Pachaimuthu, In re : (1932)62MLJ571 , we must decline to accept the reference which is premature. The learned Sessions Judge is bound to dispose of the case in so far as the offences triable with the aid of assessors are concerned. He is not competent to refer the case of those offences to this Court, nor can his reference give this Court' jurisdiction to dispose of them. Moreover from his letter of reference it would appear that the learned Sessions Judge is not prepared to express disagreement with the verdict of the jury so far as the first and the second accused are concerned. If that be so, the learned Sessions Judge must dispose of the case as against them. He cannot refer to this Court under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code the case of anybody in regard to whom he is in agreement with the verdict of the jury. The case will therefore go back to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal according to law. We, may add that we have consul...
V.E.R.M.K. Krishnan Chettiar by Agent Rama Aiyangar Vs. Velayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad604; (1938)2MLJ22
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question of what is meant by the word ' policy' in Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874. The respondent is the widow of one Sengottiah Goundan, who died on the 16th August, 1928. On the 24th August, 1927, the deceased submitted to the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company, Ltd., a proposal for a policy of insurance on his own life. The proposal was for an endowment policy for Rs. 5,000 payable in 15 years. Clause 12 of the proposal is intended to contain the name of the person nominated to receive the sum assured and his or her relation with the proposer. In this case the words entered were, ' self or wife Velayammal ' (the name of the respondent). The proposal was accepted and a policy was issued on the 5th May, 1928. The policy contained inter alia the following clause:This policy of assurance granted by the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company, Ltd. (hereafter called 'the company') witnesseth that pro...
Jureddy Kannayya and ors. Vs. Yandamuri Lakshmidevi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad708; (1938)1MLJ813
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In O.S. No. 12 of 1934 of the Court of the Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam Division, an Agency tract, one Bhimavarapu Ramaswamy sued to enforce his share in a mortgage, the share Being a moiety. In addition to the mortgagors he made as defendants the present petitioners, who are his co-mortgagees. Sometime prior to the 7th October, 1936, the petitioners applied to the Court for an order transposing them as co-plaintiffs and this application was granted. The order was followed by an application by them, in which they asked to be allowed to amend the plaint by including in it a prayer for their half share of the mortgage. The original plaintiff had paid the court-fee on the full amount due by the mortgagors. This application came before the Assistant Agent on the 4th November, 1936. He refused to allow the amendment on the remarkable ground that if it was allowed it would change the entire nature of the suit, his view being that 'only clerical mistake...
In Re: S.S. Batliwala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad758; (1938)2MLJ416
Horwell, J.1. The appellant, a member of the All-India Congress Socialist Party, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Nellore of the offence of having delivered a seditious speech punishable under Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code. The accused had toured throughout the Andhra Desa doing pro-paganda work on behalf of his party; and the speech in question was delivered at Venkatagiri at the end of his tour.2. Two preliminary objections have been raised with regard to the validity of the prosecution. The first point taken is that there was no proper sanction, in that His Excellency the Governor did not consult his Ministers as he was bound to do before sanctioning the prosecution and, secondly, that the prosecution was not filed in accordance with the order sanctioning the prosecution, in that the Circle Inspector who filed the complaint was not deputed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., as required by the sanction order, but by the Superintendent, Special Branch, C....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »