Chennai Court April 1939 Judgments
Vedula Lakshminarasimhamurti Styled as Nittala Lakshminarasimhamurti a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad928; (1939)2MLJ499
Burn, J.1. These are cross-appeals from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry passed on E.A. No. 626 of 1935 in O.S. No. 68 of 1919. The decree-holders in this execution petition sought to recover from the judgment-debtors four sums of money; costs in O.S. No. 68 of 1919 ordered by the decree of the Court to be paid by the guardian of the first defendant to plaintiffs 2 to 4 amounting to Rs. 666-8-0, interest on the same sum from 16th October, 1923, to 15th September, 1935, at 6 per cent, per annum amounting to Rs. 476-8-9, the costs decreed in A.S. No. 134 of 1924 on the file of this High Court amounting to Rs. 465-1-6 and costs in C.M.P. No. 2774 of 1927 on the file of this High Court amounting to Rs. 402-13-0. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the legal representatives of the first judgment-debtor Vedula Ramakrishnamma should be added in the execution petition and that execution should proceed against any self-acquired properties of the first judgment-debto...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subbiah Tevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad856; (1939)2MLJ455
Stodart, J.1. The accused Subbiah Tevarhas been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Sundarammal. He has filed two petitions by way of appeal. In his statement made under Section 342 to the Sessions Judge he declared that the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 9 concocted the case against him because he refused to give him fodder for his bulls. In one of his appeal petitions he states that the case has been concocted against him by enemies because he was the principal witness in a murder case five years ago. In the referred trial the question for our decision is whether the sentence of death should not be confirmed.2. There is no doubt that Sundarammal a woman of 60 was murdered in her field on the morning of Saturday, the 30th July. She was seen in the early morning when she set out for her field, by her daughter P.W. 5 who lives in the opposite house and by P.W. 6 her next door neighbour, and she was seen again by P.W. 7 in her field about 8 A.M. At midday her son P.W. 4 when...
Tag this Judgment!Nagi Reddi Vs. Nanjundappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad761; (1940)2MLJ30
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed properties on the basis of an alleged illatom affiliation.2. The plaintiff married the daughter of one Konda Reddi who died about the year 1909. The facts found are that Konda Reddi at a time when he had no children took the plaintiff into his family apparently with the idea of a regular adoption. Subsequently there were born to Konda Reddi first a son, then a daughter and then another son. After the birth of the son it is found that Konda Reddi, no longer being able to adopt the plaintiff, formed the idea that, in due course, he would marry his daughter to the plaintiff and take the plaintiff as an illatom son-in-law. On this understanding the plaintiff continued to live in the family. But an epidemic of plague intervened, the eldest son being the first victim, followed by Konda Reddi himself about a week later. It is found as a fact that on his deathbed Konda Reddi instructed his wife to complete the illa...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Rajarathna Chettiar Vs. Shari Shaick Mahboob Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad106
Leach, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the questions which arise in this appeal it is necessary to trace the course of events for some eleven years before the institution of the suit. The grandfather of respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5, one Chidri Ismail, was a dealer in skins and hides and carried on business in partnership with another Mahomedan, named Dhabaywallay Manjalay. In 1921 Chidri Ismail instituted on the Original Side of this Court a suit (Civil Suit No. 697 of 1921) for the dissolution of the partnership and for the taking of accounts. He died before the suit came on for hearing and his heirs were made plaintiffs in his stead. Chidri Ismail had a son, Chidri Abdul Rahiman, and a daughter, Masum Bi. Chidri Abdul Rahiman married one Sakina Bi, by whom he had three children, respondents 3, 4 and 5 in this appeal. Masum Bi married respondent 1 and respondent 2 is the issue of that marriage. Chidri Ismail's son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and his four grand-children were all...
Tag this Judgment!Parappil Assya Umma Vs. Paloonteakath Moossa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad707
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance by a Mahomedan wife who is now a widow. The defence was that she was divorced in 1919 by her husband and the evidence was mainly directly to the factum of divorce. There was a remand by the District Judge who first heard the appeal for a decision on the question, 'what is the school of law governing the parties' and fresh evidence was allowed on this question. When the case was re-heard by the trial Court both parties agreed that they were governed by the Shafi-Sunni law and tie trial Court reiterated the previous finding that there was no divorce. In the course of the judgment he found it necessary to make observations regarding the failure of the defence to examine the Kazi alleged to have received the divorce letter and to have maintained the register of divorces and he observed that Ex. II, a register produced by the Mukri of the mosque, did not appear to be a regular book kept by the Kazi. When the matter came up aga...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mudaliar Vs. Marimuthu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad862; (1939)2MLJ423
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Salem for a declaration that an alienation made on the 4th February, 1918, by the fourth respondent, the mother of one Shanmugam, in favour of the father of the first, second and third respondents was not binding on the reversion. Shanmugam died in 1916 and the appellant claimed to be the nearest reversioner. The common ancestor was a Sudra woman, named Valliammal, who was a prostitute. She had two sons, Muthu Mudaliar and Palaniyandi Mudaliar, but it is not known whether they were born of the same father. There is no evidence at all with regard to their paternity. The connection between the appellant and Shanmugam will be gathered from the following geneological tree: Valliammal | _______________________________________________ | | Muthu Mudaliar Palaniyandi Mudaliar | | Krishna Mudaliar Kunjan (appellant). _________________________________ | | | Daughter Daughter Palaniya...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Aiyar (Died) and anr. Vs. Minor Vageesan, by Guardian Sivaka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad849; (1939)2MLJ557
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this case is whether the performance of the datta homam ceremony is essential when a Brahmin adopts the son of his daughter. Natesa Aiyar, the brother of the first, appellant, adopted the respondent, the son of his only daughter. Natesa Aiyar was joint with his brother and his brother's son, the second appellant. Natesa Aiyar died on the 23rd September, 1929, and the respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises on the 22nd January, 1930, for partition of the family properties. The appellants denied the factum of adoption and advanced the alternative plea that if the respondent had been adopted, the adoption was invalid as the datta homam ceremony had not been performed. They also averred that if the respondent's adoption was valid, the partition of the family estate was not for his benefit. The District Munsif of Kumbakonam, who tried the suit, held that the adoption had taken place, but the datta h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kapa Morrana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad840; (1939)2MLJ635
Stodart, J.1. The two accused in this case have been convicted of the murder of Boya Baligadu. The first accused has been sentenced to death and the second accused has been sentenced to transportation for life. The accused file separate petitions of appeal. In the referred trial, the question for decision is whether the sentence of death passed upon the first accused should, if his appeal fails, be confirmed.2. There is no doubt on the night of the 25th of October, 1938, the deceased was murdered while he lay asleep in the pial of a temple near his house. The cause of death were four great wounds in the neck which must have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon. The Inspector of Police arrived at the village at 5-30 P.M. on the 26th. Suspicion was directed towards the first accused and search was made for him but he was not found till the 28th. On the 28th he was taken into custody and he made a statement to the Inspector in the presence of respectable persons which was reduced to writ...
Tag this Judgment!Vedantam Subbarayudu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Chattapalli Lakshminarasamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad949; (1939)2MLJ533
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of subrogation. The facts necessary for the disposal of the same lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 on a mortgage dated 3rd October, 1925, executed by defendants 1 to 4 and their father late Subbarayudu in her favour. There was a prior mortgage on the said property dated 1st August, 1914. In execution of a decree obtained thereon the property mortgaged was about to be sold. To discharge the said decree debt the mortgagors - late Subbarayudu and his sons - agreed to sell a part of the said property, namely, plaint items 3 to 7, 9 and 15 to defendants 6 and 7. In pursuance of the said contract, the defendants 6 and 7 obtained a sale-deed dated 2nd November, 1933, and advanced the money with which the said decree debt was satisfied. They therefore claim a right of subrogation in respect of the said sum on the ground that by their having discharged the said decree debt they are subrogated to the ri...
Tag this Judgment!A. Seetha Ramappa and ors. Vs. G.C. Ramappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad890; (1939)2MLJ555
Burn, J.1. The order of the learned District Judge in this case cannot be supported. The insolvent's debts exceeded, Rs. 18,000 and his total assets realised is a little over Rs. 50. In these circumstances the Court was obliged by Section 42(1) to refuse an absolute order of discharge unless the insolvent satisfied the Court that the fact that the assets were not of a value equal to eight annas in the rupee on the amount of his unsecured liabilities had arisen from circumstances for which he could not justly be held responsible. There were also allegations that the insolvent had continued to trade after knowing himself to be insolvent. The learned District Judge did not consider these matters at all. He has made no reference to Section 42 but he has passed an order which on the face of it is wholly indefensible. He says that the petitioner is given an absolute order of discharge subject to the condition of paying two annas in the rupee. That is an impossible condition. The only conditi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »