Chennai Court August 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.
In Re: Nataraja Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad507; (1939)IMLJ886
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. I he appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to P.W. 2 Kuppa Chuckli and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore.2. It is undoubted and was not disputed that P.W. 2 was assaulted with sticks in and near the garden of the appellant after lamp-lighting time on the 20th of September, 1937 and there is no good reason to doubt the statement of P.W. 2 that the appellant was one of his assailants. That P.W. 2 was found carrying away some ragi stalks from the garden of the appellant is no justification for the assault and one of the injuries, namely, the simple fracture of the radius of the right arm was grievous. But this might have been due to the beating by the other assailants and even otherwise the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code unless the weapon used by him was deadly and th...
Pellur Venkatasubbamma and anr. Vs. Duvvur Narayana Reddi, by Power of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad922; (1938)2MLJ487
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore attaching certain agricultural produce before judgment.2. The only point urged in this appeal by the appellants whose crop was so attached is that the attachment is in contravention of the provisions of Order 38, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, which is to the following effect:Nothing in this order shall be deemed to authorise the plaintiff to apply for the attachment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist, or to empower the Court to order the attachment or production of such produce.3. It is contended by the appellants that they are agriculturists and that the attachment of agricultural produce which was in their possession was opposed to the provisions of Order 38, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. This particular question does not appear to have been argued before the Court below and in any case, the order appealed from contains no reference to it. The point is no doubt rai...
P. Rami Reddi and ors. Vs. Chintha Chinna Narasi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad924; (1938)2MLJ583a
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted of affray and sentenced to pay fines. The convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalamadugu.2. The only question argued in this case is whether one of the ingredients of the offence of affray, namely, fighting by two or more persons, has been established; in other words, when members of one party beat members of another party and the latter did not retaliate or make any attempt to retaliate, could it be said there was fighting between the members of the one party and the members of the other. In this case, what happened was that the petitioners attacked and beat P.W. 2, because he had given evidence against them. When P.W. 1 demonstrated, he also was beaten and he fell down unconscious. P.W. 3 who interceded was hit with stones by two of the accused who have been acquitted. From this account of the offence given by the prosecution can it be said there was fighting b...
The Rajahmundry Municipal Council Represented by the Commissioner, Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad923; (1938)2MLJ639
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the interpretation of Section 83 of the Madras District Municipalities Act which begins as follows:The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from property-tax - (a) places set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose, choultries, buildings used for educational purposes including hostels2. We are not concerned with the latter portion of the section.3. The established facts are that the suit premises were dedicated for use as choultry, that the Civil Court permitted the trustee of the choultry to let one-third of the premises for rent and use this rent for the upkeep of the premises as a whole, and that under colour of that sanction, approximately one half of the building has now been let for rent to tenants, the remainder being used partly as choultry and partly as the residence of the trustee. The suit was brought by the Municipal Council (the appellant here) to establish its right to le...
Balagurumurthy Chettiar Vs. Kalingan Ambalagaran (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad957; (1938)2MLJ648
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dated the 6th December, 1935, allowing the appeal by the defendants from the decree of the District Munsiff, Trichinopoly, dated the 21st December, 1934, and remanding the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal after taking evidence on a certain point. For the purpose of deciding this appeal it is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case at any length. The suit was for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage executed by the father of defendants 1 to 3 and the fourth defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The fourth defendant's name was struck off and his case need not be considered. The suit was defended on the ground that the mortgage sued on had been discharged by the father of defendants 1 to 3 and that the endorsements of payments found on the mortgage deed were not true. After full trial the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It was not the case of the ...
In Re: Kanakasabai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad1
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore and sentenced to undergo transportation for life under Section 302, Penal Code. The charge against him is that he murdered his wife Annapurni by strangling her some time during the night of 8th June 1936 in his house at Kuttalam. The appellant and his wife belong to rich mirasdar families. They were married in April-May 1935. The appellant was about 22 years old and his wife about 19 years old at the time of the occurrence. The appellant and his paternal uncle Sivagurunatha Pillai are the only members of a joint family which owns properties worth about three lakhs of rupees. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that this paternal uncle as well as the appellant's father-in-law and the latter's relations not only did nothing to help the appellant in his defence but even actively assisted the prosecution. At least three vakils appear to have been engaged to assist the...
Kailasa Padayachi Vs. Duraiappa Kachirayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad163; (1938)2MLJ936
Varadachariar, J.1. The Court below has written a long order in this matter but I have found it very difficult to understand its reasoning; it seems to me waste of time to criticize the judgment. Far from a desire to decide the substance of the dispute between the parties, the order of the Court below only exhibits an anxiety to discuss points of law and an equal anxiety to go wrong on them.2. The Revision Petition has been filed against an order of the learned District Munsiff passed in the following circumstances.3. A decree-holder was alleged to have received the decree-amount, but it returned' out that even before the date of this alleged payment a third party had obtained an order for attachment of that decree. So far as one can gather from the dates available in the record, the payment is said to have been made before the original judgment-debtor was served with a prohibitory order. It was contended by the attaching decree-holder that there had in fact been no payment and at one ...
In Re: Gurusami Tevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1938
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ747
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant in this appeal has been convicted of attempt to murder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 307, I.P. Code, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madura. The fact that it was the appellant who stabbed P.W. 3 during the night in question is established by the evidence of P.W. 3, which has been accepted by the learned Sessions judge as well as by the assessors as being true. There is also the further fact that in a complaint made by the appellant himself at the Police Station he alleged that P.W. 3, was running away after setting fire to his house and that he pursued him that night in order to catch him, whereupon P.W. 3 beat him with a stout stick and he had to stab P.W. 3 in defence. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of of P.W. 3 in these circumstances. Some argument was addressed to me on the point that the complaint made by the appellant to the police must be deemed to be a statement made in the course of investiga...
Ramanatha Gurukkal Alias Parameswara Gurukkal Vs. V.V.R. Arunachalam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad972; (1938)2MLJ516
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the precise force of the words, 'the decision of the Board shall be final' at the end of Section 43, Clause 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927).2. The appellant was the hereditary Archaka in a non-excepted temple the control of which is regulated by the Religious Endowments Act. It is found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that he was dismissed from the office by the trustee, the first defendant and that the order of dismissal was communicated to him. Instead of preferring an appeal to the Committee or to the Board, he filed a suit praying for a declaration of his right to the office and for an injunction restraining the trustee from interfering with the performance of his duties. Various contentions have been raised for the appellant by Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar, some of which seem to me to have little force. It is contended that assuming that there is a statutory exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Court...
Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.A.R.R.M. Viswanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad50; (1938)2MLJ764
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application for the stay of execution of the final decree in a mortgage suit passed by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 29 of 1927.2. The second defendant in the suit is the petitioner before us. The mortgage bond was executed by the first defendant, the adopted son of one Chockalingam Chettiar. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the first defendant. The second defendant - the petitioner - is the natural son of the said Chockalingam Chettiar by his second wife whom he married after the death of his first wife who was the adoptive mother of the first defendant. The application is made under Order 45, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first Court passed a preliminary mortgage decree dismissing the suit as against defendants 2 to 4. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and passed a mortgage decree against the second defendant and defendants 3 and 4 as well.3. An appeal to the Privy Counci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »