Chennai Court March 1939 Judgments
Chaganti Veeresalingam Vs. Mallampalli Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad932; (1939)2MLJ282
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The third respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanuku against the appellant and his mother-in-law, one Brahmaramba, for the recovery of certain jewels or, in the alternative, damages for conversion, and obtained a decree against both the defendants for the payment of Rs. 1,275-1-0, including costs. The appellant and his mother-in-law filed an appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur and pending the hearing applied for an order staying execution of the decree. The application was granted on the condition that they deposited the full amount of the decree in the trial Court with liberty to the decree-holder to withdraw the amount on furnishing security. The appellant deposited the amount and it was withdrawn by the third respondent on a security bond being signed by the first and the second respondents. The second respondent has died during the pendency of the appeal and his estate is represented by the fourth res...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ponnambalam Chetti and ors. Vs. Ambalam Raman Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad789; (1939)2MLJ233
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The question in this petition is whether defendants are entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. It has been found by the learned District Munsiff from whom a report was obtained, that the defendants have not been assessed to property tax on an aggregate annual rental value of Rs. 600 and that therefore Proviso (c) to Section 3 of the Act does not apply to them.2. The remaining question is whether the mortgage in respect of which the decree was passed comes within Section 4(d) of the Act, that is to say, whether it is a debt contracted on the security of house property alone in a Municipality. The relevant clause of the mortgage deed recites certain boundaries within which the one-fourth share of two items is conveyed. The first item is a vacant site (Kalimanai Nilam) in the south-western side, its measurements being recited, and the second item is another site with a shop building thereon in the north-western side of the area within the bo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad886; (1939)2MLJ420
Somayya, J.1. There is a Mari Amman temple in a village called Thammampatti and a Selli Amman temple in Koneripatti, a hamlet of the above village. The two plaintiffs claimed two different rights but we are concerned in this appeal only with the right claimed by the first plaintiff. The right claimed by him is the right to lead the horse on a particular festival day whenever that festival is performed. It is said that this festival is not performed every year or at stated intervals but it is performed whenever funds permit. The right that is claimed is not a right to worship but a right to an office. It is claimed that leading the horse is an office, that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been performing this office from generation to generation and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to be protected against disturbance from the defendants. The District Munsif of Salem decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had established his right. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of S...
Tag this Judgment!Kodukula Kameswaramma Vs. Kodukula Thammanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad798; (1939)2MLJ460
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the widow of one Subbarayudu, who died in August, 1913. Subbarayudu was joint with his brothers, respondents 1 to 4. After the death of her husband the appellant went to live with her maternal grandfather and continued to live with him until his death in 1923. Shortly after her husband's death the appellant claimed the widow's right of maintenance out of the joint family property. The question of the amount to be paid to her was referred to arbitration. She was a major at the time and signed the reference, which is dated 25th April, 1914. The arbitrators gave their award on the 18th October, 1914, under which the appellant was to receive from her brothers-in-law by way of maintenance a sum of Rs. 42 per annum during her lifetime. The award also provided that the appellant should not be entitled to an increase in the rate even if circumstances changed. The rate was to be Rs. 42, no more and no less. Notwithstanding the award the appella...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ragunatha Thathachariar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ565
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff, an absentee ryot owning a large extent of land, sues to recover a sum of money alleged to have been unlawfully collected from him by the Revenue Department as a contribution in lieu of customary labour for the repair of an irrigation source, leviable under the Madras Compulsory Labour Act I of 1858 Section 6 of that Act says:Whenever by local custom any work for the purpose of irrigation or drainage or connected therewith is usually executed by the joint labour of a village community, any person bound by such custom to contribute labour to such work who neglects or refuses without reasonable cause to comply with a requisition for such customary aid made to him by the head of the village under the orders of the Tahsildar or other superior revenue officer shall be liable to pay a sum equal to twice the value of the labour which he is bound to contribute.2. It is established that on 1st June, 1929, a requisition for customary labour was published in the vill...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Duraiswami Reddiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad648; (1939)2MLJ6
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him for a declaration that he is the legal holder of the office of village headman in a Government village and that the appointment of the second defendant in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue is illegal and for restraining the Government and the second defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of the office.2. The facts are not in dispute. When the vacancy to the office occurred, the plaintiff was actually doing the work as a deputy. The second defendant is the son of a former dismissed occupant of the office and a cousin of the last actual holder of it. Both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector held that the plaintiff had a better claim to the office and the plaintiff was accordingly appointed and entered upon the duties of the office. I am informed that he is still the incumbent of the office getting the work done through a deputy. Against the Collector's order, the s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Velu Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad737; (1939)2MLJ202
Stodart, J.1. The two accused who are cousins have been convicted of the murder of Thayarammal and sentenced to death. They have filed separate appeals both numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1939.2. His Lordship after a narration of facts and evidence continued.3. On the 13th July, Srinivasalu Naicken made a long statement to the Sub-Magistrate admitting the crime and stating that he and first and second accused had murdered the woman by throttling her at the threshing floor where she slept on the night of the 27th June to guard her paddy. He said that they put the body into a gunny bag which was there and carried it to a distant field and buried it at the place which he had subsequently shown to the police. He said that before burying it they had removed the jewels and that he had been given a gold coin which he calls a quarter sovereign and one of the trinkets from the tali which he sold at a shop in Arkonam. P.W. 17 a shroff of Arkonam deposed that on the 30th June Srinivasalu N...
Tag this Judgment!Andra Venkatayya Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad300; (1939)2MLJ414
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of King, J., refusing to grant leave to appeal from an order which admittedly falls within Section 75(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is abundantly clear that this objection is well founded. There are two Bench decisions of this Court which are in point - Madhava Aiyar v. Muthia Chettiar (1916) 5 L.W. 168 and Ramanayya v. Kotayya : (1929)57MLJ398 . The first case related to an order which fell within Section 46(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, which corresponds to Section 75(3) of the present Act, and in the second case the Court held that there was no appeal from an order refusing to give leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. There is no difference in principle, here. The law does not recognise a right of appeal from a refusal to grant leave where leave is necessary and therefore this appeal does not lie. The appeal wi...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Co. Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad258
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the Official Liquidator of the Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Co., Ltd., hereinafter called the Company, for an order that the Official Liquidators of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, hereinafter called the Bank, should be directed to admit the claim of the Company in respect of the amounts standing to the credit of the Chitty Savings Bank Accounts utilized for the purpose of paying the dues of its prized subscribers who are its debtors to the extent of. the debt due by the respective subscribers to that Company as a preferential claim. The Subsidiary Company was formed mainly by the Travancore National Bank Ltd., as a private Limited Company having as its subscribers The Travancore National Bank, Ltd., which holds 4998 shares out of 5000 shares, the other two shares being held by one K. Ommen and K.M. Cheriyan, each holding one share. The object of the Company was among other things to conduct chits. The basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Balakrishna Reddiar Vs. Syed JalaluddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad791; (1939)2MLJ111
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There is no ground for dissent from the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the land in dispute is in the actual possession of the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 689 of 1938 and the declaration of his possession under Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is correct. But the direction requiring him to restore two old cemetries to their old state and allow access to Mussalmans if they should desire to go near the cemetery to invoke the blessing of God is beyond the powers of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and it cannot be upheld. The direction is therefore set aside and otherwise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is confirmed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »