Chennai Court July 1938 Judgments
In Re: Mekraj Alli Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad787; (1939)2MLJ36
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The conviction of the petitioners was under Section 147 and Sections 324, 325 and 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the view of the Sessions Judge that Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable to the case is untenable. But the award of separate sentences under Section 147 and Sections 324, 325 and 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal and the separate sentences awarded under Sections 324, 325 and 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. The sentences of the third and fourth accused under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code are reduced to the period already undergone as recommended by the Sessions Judge and the order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will stand....
Tag this Judgment!Gooru Narayana and anr. Vs. Vaikuntam Chinna Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad927; (1939)2MLJ399
Burn, J.1. The learned District Judge ought, I think, to have summoned the witnesses, since the petitioners objected to the statements of the Reddi and the Karnam. Affidavits cannot properly be acted upon unless both parties agree to have them treated as evidence. The order will be set aside and the petition restored to file for disposal according to law as provided for in Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. The costs of this petition will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kandan Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad878; (1938)2MLJ446
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. Both these cases arise out of the same matter, namely, disallowance by the Second Class Magistrate of Ariyalur of Mr. T.S. Arumugam Pillai, an Advocate, from appearing as counsel for the accused in a case of murder pending enquiry before the Magistrate. The disallowance was entirely on the ground that he had been cited as a witness by the police in the charge-sheet. It would appear that there were three charge-sheets filed in this case and the Advocate's name appears as a witness only in the last charge-sheet. But this is a minor matter. The reason given for the disallowance is obviously unsound. The mere fact that a lawyer is cited as a witness by the prosecution will not disqualify him from appearing as counsel for the accused in the case. No doubt it is not in accordance with professional etiquette for a lawyer who has given evidence as a witness for the prosecution to accept or to continue to hold a brief from the accused. That is not the case here. The mere...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. V. Jagannatha Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad903; (1938)2MLJ488
1. We agree with the learned District Judge that there is no conflict between Regulation VII of 1828 and Act III of 1895. The right of suit which is given by Section 13 of Act III of 1895 is not in any way inconsistent with the continuance of the power of 'superintendence, control and revision' given to the District Collector by Section 3 third of Regulation VII of 1828. Section 3 first of the Regulation expressly states that it applies to 'all the powers granted to Collectors by the Regulation now in force or that may hereafter be enacted'.2. It is only by virtue of this Regulation that a Revenue Divisional Officer gets authority to exercise the powers of 'Collector' under Act III of 1895. Consequently the District Collector's power of revision created by the same Regulation, unless it is expressly taken away must be held to continue. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Somasundara Edangapurandar Alias Somasundara Eratha Bakish Packiri Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad69; (1939)1MLJ68
Burn, J.1. We are of opinion that this appeal must fail. The promissory note was executed by the father of defendants 1 to 3 in 1918 and it was kept alive by him until he endorsed on it on the 6th of August of 1921 the payment of Rs. 82. That would keep the note alive until the 5th August, 1924. In the meantime the father, Ramaswami, died leaving the three defendants, his sons, surviving him. On the 5th of August, 1924, the second defendant paid Rs. 25 towards the debt and endorsed the payment. Six months before that, on the 6th of February, the second defendant was converted to Islam. Now it is clear that at the time of Ramaswami's death his sons were liable to pay the amount of this promissory note. The payment on the 5th of August, 1924, was made therefore by a person who was liable to pay the debt and under Section 20 of the Limitation Act a fresh period of limitation began from that date. On the 4th of August, 1927, second and third defendants paid Rs. 10 towards the debt and endo...
Tag this Judgment!Ry. Rajaram Raja Saheb and ors. Vs. T.R. Bhawani Sanker Joshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ940
King, J.1. This is a large batch of appeals concerned with, the execution of the decree against defendants 3 to 6 in C.S. No. 10 of 1926, the sons of the senior prince of Tanjore. There were eight sales of property in execution of this decree and 16 petitions to set aside those sales under Order 21, Rule 90. The judgment-debtors themselves filed eight of these petitions and the others were filed by an attaching decree-holder. The learned District Judge of Tanjore has dismissed all these petitions and these are appeals against his order.2. When the petitions came on for hearing, no evidence was taken as it was represented on behalf of the auction purchasers that the petitions ought to be dismissed on the allegations contained in the pleadings and on the admitted facts in the case. The learned District Judge appears to have accepted that point of view and therefore heard the petition upon arguments only and without taking any evidence. He has however dismissed the petitions on various gr...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmakartha Garudachar Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad208; (1938)2MLJ987
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. One Garudachar who claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple of Nettikanti Anjaneyaswami in Kasapuram, Gooty taluk, Anantapur District, is the appellant before us. Proceedings under Sections 18 and 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act were taken by this Endowments Board for his removal from trusteeship and for the settlement of a scheme for the administration of the temple. The appellant claimed that the temple was an excepted temple and that he was the hereditary trustee. The Commissioners held that there was no proof that the temple is an excepted one and they came to the conclusion that in the interests of the temple it was necessary that a scheme should be framed. They accordingly framed a scheme and appointed three other persons for the management of the temple. There was no place in the Board of management? for the present appellant. He then filed a suit as contemplated by Section 57 for setting aside the scheme and also a peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kista Pillai Vs. Amirthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad833; (1938)2MLJ407
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the husband of the respondent who has obtained an order of maintenance in her favour from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ranipet under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The main defence to the application for maintenance was that the petitioner was living in adultery. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate observes on this part of the case merely that there is ample evidence that the petitioner was having illicit intercourse with Chinnappa and he then goes on to quote certain observations of Newsam, J., in Lakshmi Ambalamv. Andi Ammal : AIR1938Mad66 on the file of the High Court to the effect:Living in adultery is something quite different from leading an unchaste life. The principle it seems to me is that a husband is absolved from the obligation to maintain his wife when his wife has a de facto protector with whom she lives and by whom she is being maintained as if she were his wife.2. The learned Magistrate then comes to th...
Tag this Judgment!The District Magistrate of Kurnool Vs. Chandra Thirumal Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad909; (1938)2MLJ531
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Joint Magistrate is untenable and he has no power to award costs in applications under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The reference is therefore accepted and the order as to costs is set aside. The amount if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›