Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
Ganapathi Asari Vs. Kuppuswamy Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad493; (1939)IMLJ614
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The defamatory statement was made in the deposition of the petitioner as a witness in C.C. No. 193 of 1938 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Chengam and the finding is that the statement in question was deliberately false. The offence committed would therefore fall under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code which cannot be taken cognizance of without a complaint by the Court and as laid down in Appadurai Nainar, In re : (1935)69MLJ812 , parties cannot be allowed to evade the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code by filing a complaint under another provision of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code are therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sabaratnam Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad572; (1939)1MLJ889
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 24th September, 1931, the appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 19,383-10-1 with interest against one Ramaswami Chettiar and his five sons. The father and the sons constituted a joint Hindu family. In 1926 the father was adjudicated an insolvent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah subsequently obtained seisin of the insolvency proceedings and the estate of the insolvent vested in the Official Receiver of Ramnad. The Official Receiver sought to bring the whole of the family properties to sale for the benefit of the creditors on the ground that the sons' shares in those properties were available for the discharge of the father's debts on the principle of Hindu law that sons are liable for their father's debts. The Official Receiver received bids for the various items of property in March 1932, but he did not accept any bid and adjourned the sale until the 9th April, 1932. Mean while the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Paturi Venkateswara Rao and anr. Vs. Parvataneni Subrahmanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad974; (1939)2MLJ611
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 1 and 7 in the original suit, who were respondents 1 and 7 in the petition in the Court below, are the petitioners in this Court. They seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dated the 6th August, 1937. By that order the Subordinate Judge restored a suit which had been dismissed for default on 14th January, 1937. The plaintiff's application for restoration was opposed by defendants 1 and 7 on two grounds : (1) that the decision in the suit was not one dismissing the suit for default but that it was a disposal under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code and (2) that there were no sufficient grounds to set aside the default order. The Subordinate Judge held on both points against the defendants and restored the suit on terms. This revision petition is directed against the said order and it is urged before me by Mr. Lakshmayya the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the disposal was not under Order 17, Rule 2 but was one under Order ...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Balanagayya Chetti Vs. Chetti Varadarajulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad734; (1939)1MLJ610
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. We have before us two applications for certificates permitting appeals to His Majesty in Council and for an order consolidating the two appeals. The appeals were heard together and dealt with in one judgment. In the trial Court the suits were tried together, but there were separate judgments. The first suit was O.S. No. 56 of 1933 of the2. Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, and was filed by the second respondent for the dissolution of a partnership with the petitioner and the taking of the partnership accounts. He valued his relief at Rs. 6,000. The petitioner denied that the partnership ever existed. The second suit was O.S. No. 57 of 1933 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, and was filed by the petitioner against both respondents. The first respondent is the father of the second respondent. In this suit the petitioner alleged that he had paid to the respondents various sums of money with the direction that they should be paid to on...
Tag this Judgment!Mada Nagaratnam Vs. Puvvada Seshayya and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad361; (1939)IMLJ272
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Under the provisions of Order 46, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the District Munsif of Guntur, the district Munsif of Cuddalore and the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada have referred to this Court for decision questions with regard to the validity of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, an Act passed by the Madras Legislature to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists in the Province. The Act provides for the scaling down of debts and interest and for remission of arrears of rent. All the references raise the question whether the provisions of the Act relating to the scaling down of debts and interest are ultra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature in that these provisions are repugnant to provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The reference by the District Munsif of Guntur couples the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, with the Negotiable Instruments Act and the reference by the 'District Munsif of Cuddalore raises th...
Tag this Judgment!Karibandi Veeranna Vs. Sripada Lakshmipathi Somayajulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad797; (1939)1MLJ678
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, to set aside a sale of land under the Madras Estates Land Act for arrears of rent on the ground that there had been material irregularity and fraud in connection with the sale. The sale was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the auction purchaser was the Village Munsif, the second respondent in this appeal. The property was bought in the joint names of the second respondent and the first respondent, who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. It was held by the trial Court that the first respondent was not in fact a purchaser but had merely lent his name to the second respondent. Section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, states that no officer holding a sale of property under the Act and no person employed by or subordinate to such officer shall either directly or indirectly bid for, acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in any property sold at a sal...
Tag this Judgment!Khaji Dodda Khaji Sahib and ors. Vs. Chigamalla Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad642; (1939)1MLJ909
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Muhammadan community of the village of Kunchur, Bellary District, owns a piece of land in the Hindu quarter of the village. Some years ago they proposed to; erect on this land a Jumma Musjid, notwithstanding that there were already two mosques in the village. The proposal was greatly resented by the Hindus of the village, and in 1929 they filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Hospet for an injunction restraining the defendants, who represented the Muhammadan community, from erecting the Musjid and a declaration of the unrestricted rights of the Hindus to hold religious, social, public and private processions 'attended with music' along the route on which the proposed Jumma Musjid was to be built. The suit was strenuously contested. The defendants set up a contention that a mosque had been erected on the site in 1910 but this had been demolished with a view to the construction of a new mosque. The District Munsif found that although th...
Tag this Judgment!Etti and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad663; (1939)1MLJ784
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court hi O.S. No. 919 of 1935. This suit was filed in forma pauperis by a man and his wife living in Madras for Rs. 3,000 as damages against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that on 4th December, 1933, the first plaintiff and his brother took the infant son of the plaintiffs to the Government Hospital for Women and Children, Egmore, Madras, for treatment. The child was two or three days old. About the 11th December, the nurse in charge of the Children's ward at the Hospital is said to have told the first plaintiff and his brother that the child was cured and might be taken away, but before taking the child away, the first plaintiff was advised to buy a piece of rubber apparatus. The first plaintiff and his brother went away and bought this appliance, went back to the hospital the same day to fetch the child away, and were then in...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharaja of Pittapuram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad581; (1939)2MLJ90
Stodart, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He is the Rajah of Pittapuram. The suit is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act (VIII of 1923). The subject-matter of the suit was 48 cents of land lying on the boundary between the village of Madupalli which is a Government village and Vanapalli which belongs to the plaintiff. At the recent survey completed in 1928 this 48 cents was surveyed in the Ayan Government village Madupalli being included in Survey No. 21 of that village. The Zamindar filed a claim before the Survey Officer and the Survey Officer decided the dispute in favour of the Government. The grounds on which the decision was based have not been exhibited in the Courts below. We have only the decision of the Survey authority to whom the Zamindar appealed. That order contains no details but simply is that 'the order of the lower Court is confirmed'.2. The only point I think which arises for consideration in this second a...
Tag this Judgment!Kokkonda Venkata Rama Surya Gopala Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. Surabhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ388
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a reversioner for recovery of possession of the properties of one Lakshmayya who died in January, 1889, eaving a widow Subbamma who died in February, 1926. The first defendant is the widow of Subbamma's brother. She obtained the suit properties by a conveyance from her husband, that is, Subbamma's brother, who in turn had taken possession in execution of a foreclosure decree obtained by him against his sister Subbamma in O.S. No. 51 of 1903, on the file of the District Court, Godavari. The other defendants claim under the first defendant and their case need not be separately considered. The plaintiff contended that the document Ex. V, which was sought to be enforced in O.S. No. 51 of 1903 was not binding on the reversioner, that the decree obtained in O.S. No. 51 of 1903 was likewise not binding on him and that he was accordingly entitled to possession from the date of the widow's death. Against this claim it was allege...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »