Chennai Court January 1939 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.
N.M. Muthuvasu Chettiar Vs. Velumuruga Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ362
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of money due under a mortgage bond, Ex. A, executed on 5th October, 1929, by the first defendant and the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 4 are members of a joint Hindu family, the first defendant being the father and defendants 2 to 4 his sons. The fifth defendant was impleaded, as a document Ex. I had been executed by the first defendant in his favour on 7th October, 1929, and according to its tenor it purported to be a puisne mortgage. But the fifth defendant admitted that it was a nominal transaction and he has accordingly taken no part in the suit except that he was examined as D.W. 1 and has deposed not merely to the fact that Ex. I was a nominal transaction but also to a conversation that took place between himself and the first defendant about the time when Exs. A and I were thought of. The first defendant raised some objections in respect of certain portions of the amounts claimed...
In Re: Shanbagaperumal Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad279
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly dated 30th July 1938 convicting the appellants, 13 in number, of an offence punishable under Section 148, I.P.C., that is rioting armed with a deadly weapon. There were a number of other charges also against the appellants but they were acquitted of these charges and it is not necessary to go into them. With the exception of accused 2 and 4 of whom accused 2 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100 and accused 4 to rigorous imprisonment for one year, the remaining accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 75. The charge of rioting against them was that on 20th October 1937 they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of preventing by force one Thoondikaruppa Nadar and his party from ploughing their lands and that in prosecution of the said common object committed rioting at Kallurani ...
In Re: Balam Pateyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad339
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of 'West Godavari dated 7th May 1938 in S.C. No. 6 of 1988 on his file. The case related to certain occurrences which took place in the village of Mukkumala on 15th August 1937. The trial in the Sessions Court began only on 2lst March 1938 and went on for nearly a month and a half. There were 24 accused and the number of witnesses examined for the prosecution were 51 and a fairly large number of exhibits were filed on both sides. To add to the complexity and the difficulty which the case must have presented to the jury who in respect of some of the counts acted as assessors and also to the trial Judge, the charges against the accused were on no less than 66 counts and the occurrences related to about fifteen different places, the first occurrence being at the hamlet of the Edigas in the village known as the Edigagudem, the next being the gingelly fields near it, the third occurrence being between the washerman...
In Re: Govindasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad501; (1939)1MLJ608
Stodart, J.1. Property was sold in Court auction in execution of a decree. While this sale was pending confirmation this petitioner who also had a decree attached the same property. Then he put in this petition to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 on the ground that there was irregularity in publishing or conducting it. The Courts below have held that the petitioner did not come within that rule as he was not a person whose interests were affected by the sale. This petition is to revise that finding.2. The petitioner is not entitled to rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code. His grievance is that the sale but for the irregularity would have fetched more in which case he could have gone against the surplus funds in Court after the executing decree-holder had been paid.3. But the question remains, was the petitioner a person whose interests were affected by the sale?4. Every creditor whether he has a decree or not is interested in seeing that at any sale of his debto...
In Re: Veerappa Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad496; (1939)1MLJ573
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Trichinopoly, recommending that the proceedings of the Sub-Magistrate, Turaiyur, in C.C. No. 245 of 1938 on his file may be quashed.2. There is no doubt that the proceedings Were wholly misconceived and ought to be quashed.3. In brief, the proceedings started with a complaint by the police against a certain person for offences under Sections 447 and 188, Indian Penal Code, in respect of a certain act which was said to have constituted disobedience of the orders of the Sub-Magistrate, issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the very Sub-Magistrate whose orders are said to have been disobeyed by the accused tried the alleged offender, and there was no previous complaint by that Magistrate or by his superior; the accused was tried and convicted by the same Magistrate. Fortunately on certain grounds the Sub-Magistrate thought fit to make a reference to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for ...
D.A. Kalandar Rowther and ors. Vs. Sivapunyam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ751
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants in this case are the legal representative's of a mortgagee from the first and second defendants and from the first defendant as guardian of his minor brother, the plaintiff, who attacks the mortgage as not binding on his interest in the joint family property. The family of the plaintiff followed the ancestral occupation of dealing in oil seeds and working country oil mills. The father Dharmalingam started a. rice mill and ran it for some little time but for about a year before his death in 1916 the rice mill was not worked. After his death the two major sons, first and second defendants kept the rice mill idle. That at best is the finding of the Courts below. It is however contended that this finding ignores the evidence to the effect that the rice mill was worked for a short time after the death of the father; but it seems to me that I cannot go behind the findings of the Courts below on a question of fact. In 1922 this rice mill which had been lying idl...
In Re: Darapureddi Jaggu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad530; (1939)1MLJ900
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate of Vizagapatam recommending that the issue of process by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paravatipur, in C.C. No. 152 of 1938 on his file, a case under Section 8 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) may be set aside on the ground that the process was issued without holding an enquiry as required by Section 10 of that Act.2. The position is indeed very clear that a preliminary enquiry is absolutely necessary before the Court can take cognisance of an offence under the Act. Section 10 is very clear on the point and the provisions of it are mandatory. The issue of process implies that cognizance was taken without any preliminary enquiry being held as required by Section 10. The issue of process is therefore unauthorised by law and must be set aside. It will now be open to the Joint Magistrate to hold the preliminary enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code....
M. Subbiah Vs. T. Ramacharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad604; (1939)2MLJ117
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a simple case in which the President of a Panchayat Court was complained against in respect of certain acts committed by him while he was in his own Court dealing with a case in which the complainant in the case was a party.2. The complaint petition itself says that when the President, that is, the petitioner in the present case, was about to write the Court's order dismissing the complainant's petition, the complainant objected to the dictation by the clerk of the President of the order to be pronounced in the matter and asked the President not to allow the clerk to dictate the judgment as the Court was bound in law to write its own judgment and that it was on account of this objection taken by the complainant that the President of the Court is said to have got up from his seat abusing the complainant and slapped him on the cheek twice. It is also alleged that when the complainant warned the President that he had no business to assault him in open Court...
Natesa Padayachi Vs. Krishna Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad576; (1939)1MLJ894
King, J.1. This revision petition relates to a suit brought by one of two reversioners for partition of the estate left by one Kannu Padayachi which had in the meanwhile been alienated by his widow Sundaram to a number of alienees. The suit was decreed in part and dismissed in part. The plaintiff asserted in his plaint that he and the twenty-eighth defendant were joint reversioners with equal rights. The twenty-eighth defendant in his written statement supported the plaintiff's case and asked that a decree might be given for his share of the property. There was, however, no decree granted in favour of the twenty-eighth defendant and shortly after the decree was passed he applied for a decree in his own favour. This was refused by the learned Subordinate Judge and the question whether that refusal was right or wrong is now before us in this petition.2. We have been referred to two rulings which deal with a somewhat similar situation, on the earlier one of which the learned Subordinate J...
A. Veeran Kutti Vs. P.P. Koya Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad735; (1939)2MLJ86
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit on a mortgage filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Parapanangadi. A preliminary decree was passed against him on the 21st July, 1925 and he preferred an appeal. No stay of the proceedings in the trial Court was obtained pending the hearing of this appeal and on the 9th November, 1925, the District Munsif passed a final decree for sale. The appeal against the preliminary decree was dismissed on the 16th March, 1927. On the 15th March, 1930, the decree-holder respondents applied for execution of the final decree. Objection was taken by the appellant on the ground that the application for execution was barred by the law of limitation, as it had been filed more than three years after the passing of the final decree. The District Munsif rejected this contention, but dismissed the application because the second defendant had died and his legal representatives had not been brought on the record. The appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »