Chennai Court April 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.
ShahabuddIn Sahib Vs. Tota Venkatachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad911; (1938)2MLJ523
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The facts which had led up to this revision may be briefly stated. One Anthonimuthu owed some money to Gnanaprakasam Pillai for which the latter had secured two decrees against the former. The defendant was an agent to the aforesaid Gnanaprakasam Pillai for the purpose of collecting his outstandings. When he went to realise the debts due to Gnanaprakasam Pillai he discovered that Anthonimuthu could give useful evidence in a case which he intended to institute against some third person, with whom I am not concerned here. An arrangement was thus arrived at between the defendant on the one hand and Anthonimuthu on the other, under which the latter promised to depose in the defendant's favour and the former agreed to discharge the debts due to Gnanaprakasam Pillai by the latter. It appears that the defendant was not in a position to pay the debts due to Gnanaprakasam Pillai at the moment. He consequently paid a sum of Rs. 100 only in cash and after deducting Rs. 50 which...
Karuppasami Goundan Vs. Ovala Kondama Naicker Aiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad940; (1938)2MLJ565
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Palni to recover a sum of Rs. 990 claimed to be due by the third respondent as the equivalent of rent in kind of certain agricultural land. He also claimed a decree for this amount against the 1st and 2nd respondents on the ground that he had a charge on the produce of the land for the amount due for rent and that they had wrongly removed the produce in collusion with the 3rd respondent. The District Munsiff held that the appellant was entitled to a decree against all the respondents and this decision was concurred in by the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul on appeal. A second appeal followed to this Court and the case came before Varadachariar, J., who held that the appellant was not entitled to a decree against the 1st and 2nd respondents, as in his opinion there was no charge. The appeal depends entirely on the construction to be placed on the lease, Ex. B, which is dated 1st September, 1925. I...
Mullapudi Sooranna Vs. Mullapudi Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad441; (1939)2MLJ271
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the application for execution, out of which this appeal arises, is barred by limitation. The learned District Munsiff has held that it is barred while the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a different view.2. The plaintiff obtained a money decree against defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 913 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Kovvur on the 25th February, 1928. He then made an application (E.P. No. 730 of 1928) for execution of the decree by attachment of the movable property of the defendants. Defendants 3 and 4 preferred an appeal A.S. No. 375 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ellore, and applied for stay of execution of the decree. By order dated 16th October, 1928, the learned District Judge, before whom the appeal was pending, directed the defendants to deposit the amount into Court and ordered that the amount of the decree may be paid to the plaintiff on his furnishing security to the satisfaction o...
Thadikonda Sreeramamurthy Vs. Mannaluri Rama Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ521
ORDER1. On the 16th March, 1938, this Court granted to the petitioner a certificate permitting him to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Order 45, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code requires a person to whom a certificate is granted to furnish security in cash or in Government securities for the costs of the respondent, but there is a proviso which says that the Court at the time of granting the certificate may, on the ground of special hardship order that some other form of security may be furnished. At the time of the grant of the certificate the petitioner made no application for permission to furnish security otherwise than in cash or in Government securities, but on the 24th March he filed a petition asking the Court to accept security in the form of immovable property. This petition is now before us.2. The learned advocate for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection, and has pointed out that this question has already been decided by a Bench of this Court in Arunachala Na...
In Re: G.S. Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ661
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Court is called upon to consider a report of the District Judge of Vizagapatam in which he suggests that the respondent, a pleader, should be censured for unprofessional conduct. The proceedings arise out of a petition filed by one Abbas Ali Sahib, in which he complained that the respondent had neglected instructions given to him in connection with certain execution proceedings on the 6th September, 1937, and had failed to take effective steps until the 9th November, 1937. It appears that the complainant paid the respondent a sum of Rs. 10-4-0 on account of out-of-pocket expenses and his fee of Rs. 2 and also paid to the respondent's clerk Rs. 3-12-0 of which one rupee was to be the clerk's fee. A question arose when the case was before the District Munsiff who inquired into the complaint whether the Rs. 3-12-0 had been refunded to the petitioner, as alleged by the clerk. The District Munsiff held that the amount had not been returned, but thi...
Arathil Kandoth Madhathil Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs. P.K. Chathu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad848; (1939)1MLJ897
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant appeals from a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry holding him liable as the endorser of a promissory note exec.uted by the second and third respondents and also as a guarantor of payment. In 1929 the first respondent had money which he wished to invest and got in touch with the appellant. On the 2nd May, 1929, the appellant wrote to the first respondent advising him to invest his money on the security of immovable property and assuring him that he could make safe investments on his behalf. On the 11th May, 1929, the first respondent wrote to the appellant stating that if he could get proper security, he would leave the matter of the investment of his monies entirely to the appellant. He stipulated that there should be interest at 12 percent, per annum and, the investment should be for six or twelve months. The correspondence clearly shows that the appellant's instructions were to invest on the security of immovabl...
In Re: Veerana Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad593; (1939)2MLJ487
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Madura for offences under Sections 364, Indian Penal Code; 201 and 202, Indian Penal Code. He was tried along with two others for the murder of one Mayalagan on or about the 5th of May, 1937. Mayalagan left his home on the morning of that day with the intention of going to Vellaikundram. His mother P. W. 4 says that the appellant came at the time that her son was starting and accompanied him. Mayalagan did not come back home and after some days his mother went to Vellaikundram and made enquiries about him and when it was found that he had not been to Vellaikundram she questioned the first accused, the present appellant. He told her that her son had gone to, Madura. Search in Madura proved fruitless and when P.W. 4 again questioned the appellant he said that he' had gone to Melakottai. She could not find him there and when she questioned the appellant a third time he said that Mayalagan had gone to Ayyankottai....
K.V. Venkataramanier and anr. Vs. Varadarajulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ360
ORDERBurn, J.1. I am unable to accept this reference. With all respect to King, J., I am unable to follow the reasoning in Rajaratnam Pillai In re : (1936)70MLJ340 , Criminal Procedure Code, is concerned with extra-judicial information, knowledge or suspicion and it has nothing (in my opinion) to do with knowledge gathered by a. Magistrate in open Court from the evidence of witnesses given during a trial. If a Magistrate begins a trial as a Summons Case and then finds that an offence triable only under Warrant Case procedure has been committed, he is, I think, bound to apply Warrant Case procedure thenceforward and he is not in any way disqualified from proceeding with the trial. Let the papers be returned and the case proceed....
Maliyakkal Imbichi's son Mannan Vs. Chevakaran Keloth Puthiya Malikkay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad505; (1939)1MLJ612
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application for renewal of a kuzhikanam under Section 22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, and the sole question for determination is whether the respondents 1 to 3 can claim the benefit of Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The respondents are subsequent kanamdars from the jenmi and until the kuzhikanamdar attorns to them he cannot be said to hold the land under them. They would not therefore be landlords within the meaning of Clause (o) of Section 3 of the Malabar Tenancy Act though they may be entitled to collect the rent payable by the kuzhikanamdar, and the benefit under Clause 5 of Section 20 can only be claimed by the landlord of the kuzhikanamdar. It is, in this view, unnecessary to consider whether Clause 2 of Section 40 of the Act does not preclude the respondents from claiming the benefit of Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Act and the view of the District Judge that the kanamdars are in effect the proprietor...
S.V. Subba Rao Vs. Tha Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad304; (1939)1MLJ695
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is as to the proper article of the Limitation Act for an application for the enforcement of an award passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 51 of the Act.2. The execution application in this case, out of which this appeal arises, was made in 1936 in respect of an award which was passed on 15th July, 1931. The first application for enforcement of the award made to the District Munsiff of Calicut was made in 1932 and between 1932 and 1936 there were other applications made for its enforcement. It is conceded that if Article 182 of the Limitation Act applies, there is no bar of limitation. Both the lower Courts have taken the view that Article 182 is applicable and held that the application is not barred by limitation. But it is contended by Mr. Sesha Aiyar that this view is wrong and that the article applicable is Article 181 of the Limitation Act. He places considerable reliance on the decision of Cornish...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »