Chennai Court January 1939 Judgments
Aryakkandi Kunhi Kannan Vs. Kottiath Vazhayil Devaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad907; (1939)2MLJ619
Stodart, J.1. This second appeal involves the decision of an interesting question of law. The appeal arises out of a suit to set aside alienations of property belonging to a Malabar tarwad and to recover property. There were three such alienations, but at the hearing of this appeal only one remains in controversy, namely, a gift to certain persons evidenced by a registered gift deed Ex. A in the suit. The persons who-executed that deed were Arayakandy Kottiah Kannan executing, it as karnavan of the tavazhi, secondly his niece Arayakandi Kunhimani and lastly Kannan purports to execute it on behalf of Kunhi Kannan the present plaintiff who was then a child of 4 years. That gift in form is a gift by all the existing members of the tarwad or tavazhi. Kannan described in this document as the karnavan died in 1919 and his niece Kunhimani was left in sole management of the tarwad property. The plaintiff came of age in 1927 and he filed the suit now under appeal in 1930 within three years of h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kovvada Sanyasi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad306
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners, twelve in number, were convicted of the offence of mischief punishable under Section 430, Penal Code; and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 20 by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Vizianagaram. That judgment was confirmed on appeal by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Vizianagaram. The act alleged against the petitioners is the closing of the middle sluice of the tank known as the Baddi Tank in Gumadam village on 17th September 1937 after the same had been opened by the Amin of the Vizianagaram estate for the purpose of irrigating the lands of one Sheik Hussain of Pedda Majjipalam, registered tinder that tank as wet lands. The actual closing of the sluice after it had been opened for the above purpose has been established beyond doubt and it is not seriously contended before me that the petitioners were not responsible for closing the sluice in question. The only point that has been urged before me is that the act does not constitute the offence...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manikyam Kondayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad298
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellants have been convicted after a trial with the aid of assessors by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari on various charges and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment which are to run concurrently. The charge against them was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to the Village Munsif of Anur to which place the appellants belong and in prosecution of that common object, one of the accused, namely accused 1, caused grievous hurt to the Village Munsif with a knife. The other accused -were charged under the same Section, namely Section 326, Penal Code, under the provisions of Section 149, Penal Code. There was also a further charge against accused 1 under Section 23(1), Criminal Tribes Act. There is some doubt as to whether this charge was justified or not as he was not a member of the criminal tribe at the time of his conviction, though he was a member at the time of the occurrence. The Section...
Tag this Judgment!Kuncha Ramakrishnayya Vs. Kondamudi Sreeramulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad547; (1939)1MLJ436
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance, instituted by a vendor and his son. The son who is the second plaintiff may be ignored for the purpose of this appeal and the vendor referred to as the plaintiff. The contract, evidenced by Ex. I, was entered into on 26th January, 1930. The plaintiff thereby agreed to sell 7 acres 74 cents of land to the defendant for a sum of about Rs. 9,000. He received Rs. 100 by way of advance and it was agreed that the balance should be paid within one month and the transaction completed. As the sale-price was mainly intended to be utilised by the vendor in discharge of his debts, it was agreed that such balance as might remain after the debts had been discharged should be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. As a lease of the land was then outstanding, Ex. I finally provided that possession should be delivered to the vendee on the expiry of the term of that lease. For almost a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: D.S. Raju Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad472; (1939)1MLJ480
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The District Judge of Vizagapatam made an order under Sections 476 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing that a complaint should be preferred charging one D.S. Raju Gupta, Managing Director, Bharathamatha Commonwealth Insurance Bank, Ltd., Vizagapatam, with offences punishable under Sections 465 and 467 read with Sections 109 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The person against whom the complaint has been ordered to be lodged presents an appeal from the order. A right of appeal is given by Section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, from the order in question, but it has been objected to by the office that the appeal should be filed on the civil side of this Court and not on the criminal side, in view of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Orders, 1931. The Advocate for the appellant insists that he is entitled to file an appeal on the criminal side. The question is whether his contention is right. The learned Advocate has referred me to several impor...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad651; (1939)1MLJ780
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise from the same judgment in a suit preferred by a zamindar to recover a sum of money alleged to have been illegally collected by the Government by way of land cess from the plaintiff. S.A. No. 161 is preferred by the Government with reference to the decree granted in respect of the cess calculated on fishery rentals. S.A. No. 177 is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit so far as it relates to the cess calculated on income from quarries, grazing fees and sale of grass. The land cess in question is levied under Section 78 of the Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920 as amended by Act XI of 1930), being calculated on the annual rental value of all occupied lands on whatever tenure held in the manner laid down in Section 79. With reference to zamindari lands such as those covered by the present suit, sub-Section 3 is applicable and the basis of the cess is (1) in case of lands occupied by a tenant, the annual rent payable to the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. N.S. Sharma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad575; (1939)2MLJ518
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Public Prosecutor, Madras, from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of South Kanara acquitting one N.S. Sharma of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent punishable under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The man had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 800 by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore Division. On appeal, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge who dealt with the facts of the case at great length in his judgment. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have come to the conclusion that the entrustment itself had not been proved beyond doubt. The case for the prosecution was that certain goods, namely, Aniline Dyes, etc., had been sent by the Aniline Dyes and Chemical Company, Bombay, to the accused in his capacity as manager of their branch at Mangalore. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the case was not proved that the appellant was th...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Athikesavalu Naidu Vs. S. Ekambara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad473; (1939)1MLJ420
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application for issue of a writ of certiorari and for quashing the order of the Election Commissioner of Vellore in O.P. No. 11 of 193S. The petitioner and the first respondent were both candidates for election as member of the District Board of North Arcot. The first respondent in this petition was the petitioner before the Election Commissioner. His nomination paper had been rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that he was interested in a subsisting contract with the Board with the result that the only other candidate, the present petitioner, was declared elected. The validity of that election was questioned by the first respondent whose nomination had been rejected and the Election Commissioner upheld his petition for setting aside the election of the petitioner. The Election Commissioner, that is the Subordinate Judge of Vellore held that the first respondent was not interested in a subsisting contract with the Board on the date of nomin...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakami Achi Vs. Narayana Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ519
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The ground on which the application was turned down by the lower Court that an application under Order 39, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be made on behalf of a defendant is erroneous. If the learned Subordinate Judge had taken the trouble of reading Order 39, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, he would have come to a different conclusion. I would now draw his attention to the words 'by any party' used in the section. They would include the plaintiff and if any such act is committed by the plaintiff it is only the defendant who would have come to the Court with a complaint. Again the ruling in Karori Chand v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh (1916) 1 Pat. L.J. 560, does not support the proposition for which it has been quoted. If the lower Court had bestowed a little more attention to the ruling and not to the words used in the head notes this appeal would not have been necessary.2. The order passed by the lower Court must be set aside and the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Alluri China Bapanna and ors. Vs. Sri Mattangi Jaggiah Alias Jaggarao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad818; (1939)2MLJ214
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted originally by one Muttangi Jaggiah alias Jaggarao as one for dissolution of partnership and for accounts but really for the recovery of a proportionate share claimed by him and one Sitaramayya (sixth defendant) from defendants 1 to 5 out of the money collected by them from the late P. Ramarayanim Garu, Rajah of Panagal, who had executed a mortgage deed for Rs. l,16,650on the 9th September, 1913, in favour of the Rajah of Badrachalam (Ex. I). This mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff, Sitaramayya (sixth defendant) and the defendants (1 to 5) by the Rajah of Badrachalam on the 6th July, 1925, under Ex. II as the latter owed a sum of Rs. 80,000 to the plaintiff and Sitaramayya on a promissory note dated the 22nd March, 1924, and a sum of Rs. 41,071-9-4 to the defendants (1 to 5) on a promissory note dated the 13th July, 1923. The consideration for the assignment as given in the deed consisted of the entire debt of Rs. 41,071...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »