Chennai Court August 1939 Judgments
Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. S. Kamal Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ851
1. This appeal must be allowed. The learned Commissioner's finding that the deceased was in the employment of the opposite party is a finding of fact with which we cannot, and do not wish to interfere. But there was no evidence whatever on which the learned Commissioner could base his finding that the accident to the deceased arose out of and in the course of his employment. His employment was as a 'bus driver' but at the time of the accident he was travelling as a passenger, standing on the foot board. There is no evidence that he was going to or from his work, or that he was going in the bus for the purpose of his employment.2. This appeal is allowed with costs here and in the Court of the Commissioner....
Tag this Judgment!Thatathil Nayippatiyil Raman Adiyoty Vs. Chirikandoth Kunnath Kaitheri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad725; (1940)1MLJ340
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decree of the lower Court directing him to refund a sum of Rs. 423-15-6 with interest to the first respondent.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated. The respondents form a tavazhi tarvad of which the second respondent is the karnavan. The appellant sued the second respondent in O.S. No. 912 of 1926 in the District Munsif's Court at Kuthuparamba and obtained a decree for payment of money against him personally and as karnavan. In execution of that decree, certain properties belonging to the tavazhi were attached and brought to sale. The first respondent who was then a minor instituted through his next friend O.S. No. 843 of ly27 in the same Court for a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellant against the second respondent as karnavan in O.S. No. 912 of 1926 referred to above was a fraudulent and collusive decree based upon debts which were not real but had been fictitiously pu...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Ammal Vs. Subramania Sastrigal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad82; (1940)1MLJ460
Burn, J. 1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly. in E.A. No. 8 of 1935 dismissing the appellant's application, under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1927. The final decree in the suit was passed on 23rd February, 1933 and the sale was held on 28th November, 1934. Several irregularities were alleged on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The learned Subordinate Judge held that no irregularities had been made out and also held that the lands had been sold for reasonable prices and that therefore no substantial loss had been caused. He therefore dismissed the petition. 2. In appeal Mr. Sitarama Rao for the appellant has pressed before us strongly the contention that the sale was illegal. The sale was fixed for 21st November, 1934. On the 21st of November, 1934, the judgment-debtor put in an application under Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2) praying that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mudala Sithanna and ors. Vs. Kuppili Lakshminarasimhulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad540; (1940)1MLJ302
Mockett, J.1. The relationship between the plaintiff and one Appalanarasamma who is the all-important character in this story is shown in the geneological table herewith annexed. It will be seen that one Radhakrishnamma married one Venkamma and that they had a daughter Appalanarasamma who died on the 9ih February, 1932. The plaintiff is the son of a sister of Radhakrishnamma, namely, Kuppili Peda Ragha-vamma and he claims the property, the subject of this suit, as a reversioner to the estate of Radhakrishnamma. There are before us four defendants-appellants. In A.S. No. 10 of 1937 defendants 2, 3 and 7 are the appellants and are represented by Mr. P. Somasundaram. The first defendant appeals separately in A.S. No. 205 of 1937 arfd is represented by Mr. Govinda-rajachari. The property concerned is as follows: The defendants claim that they are entitled to the suit property; defendant 2 as alienee of portions of item 1 in the plaint which he purchased from the first defendant and Appalan...
Tag this Judgment!V.E.R.M.K. Krishnan Chettiar by Agent Rama Ayyangar Vs. P.L.P. Devaray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad228; (1940)1MLJ786
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore allowing an appeal in the following circumstances. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore applied before the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to annul, on the ground of fraudulent preference a mortgage deed executed by a person whose estate was, after his death, adjudicated insolvent. The mortgage deed was executed on the 7th July, 1931 in favour of the petitioner here who was the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The petition to have the mortgagor adjudicated insolvent was presented on the 9th September, 1931. Subsequently the mortgagor died, and after his death, adjudication took place after his sons were brought on record to represent his estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held on the evidence before him that no case of fraudulent preference was made out and that the mortgage was executed as a result of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuniyil Chandu Vs. Mathiledath Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad56
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dismissing his suit for redemption and recovery of a paramba with arrears of rent according to the terms of a kana kychit executed on 31st May 1927 by respondent 1 in his favour. It was provided in the kychit marked as Ex. A in the case that if the kanamdar, i.e., respondent 1, kept the rent in arrears or did any act prejudicial to the appellant or if he quarried stones-from the plot without the appellant's written consent thereto respondent 1 should on demand by the appellant, surrender, the plot to him without raising any dispute or any plea with reference to the stipulated, term, of 12 years on receiving the kanam amount the value of the kuzhikur chamayams as estimated then and the fee for the unexpired period of the term. The appellant's case was that respondent 1 quarried stones from the plot in question without his written consent and that he was ...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. and Co. Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad10; (1940)1MLJ28
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner has applied for the issue of a writ of certiorari with the view to the quashing of the proceedings taken by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for the cancellation of a lease granted to him by the trustee of the temple of Sri Adimooleswarar, Agaram, Chidambaram Taluq, South Arcot District. Notice was issued to the Board and the Court has heard the arguments of the learned Advocates who have appeared for the respective parties. In August, 1938, the petitioner applied to the trustee of the temple for a lease for a term of 99 years of certain lands belonging to the temple. His intention was to utilize the lands for salt pans. The trustee granted the lease and it was registered on the 29th of August, but it had not been sanctioned by the South Arcot Temple Committee and therefore admittedly it was invalid. On the 30th November, 1938, the matter of the lease was considered by the Committee which resolved to cancel it, but decided to sanctio...
Tag this Judgment!Midde Sampathirayudu Vs. Sonti Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad878; (1940)2MLJ278
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff claimed two reliefs in the suit (1) an account of a certain arrack business alleged to have been carried on by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant and (2) a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of certain war bonds and Government promissory notes described in the schedule to the plaint. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendant was his son-in-law and therefore he allowed the arrack business to be carried on in his name and as security for the said business he had the Government promissory notes and war bonds deposited therefor. The learned Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the plaintiff has not made out his case that the defendant was only a benamidar in respect of the arrack business. In regard to the war bonds and Government promissory notes the learned Judge is of opinion that by virtue of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. V. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad329
Pandrang Row, J. 1. The charge against the accused is on two counts, and I desire that you should pay particular attention to the wording of the charge. In substance it relates to two sums of Rs. 4000 each paid into the hands of the accused by Mrs. Appasami on the 20th November 1933, and the 2nd March 1934, respectively in discharge of a mortgage for Rs. 8000 executed by her husband, the late Dewan Bahadur Paul Appasami in 1923 in favour of the Foreign Mission at Pondicherry of which Father Pinel who was examined before you was Procurator at all material times. The particular point to which I wish to draw your attention is that the charge itself is to the effect that by receiving these amounts in his capacity as an attorney or agent of the Mission and by failing to pay the same to Father Pinel the accused had committed criminal breach of trust. You will thus see that the charge says that the non-payment to Father Pinel after entrustment by Mrs. Appaswami constitutes criminal breach of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C. Kanniah Maistry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad976; (1939)2MLJ618
ORDERPatanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioners were prosecuted in this case for an alleged offence under Section 4 (2) of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. The learned Appellate Magistrate however observed that there was no betting at the time of the night when the instruments of betting were seized by P.W. 1 under Section 5 of the Act and that the petitioners were there only for the purposes of payment or sharing of profits. But he has held that the petitioners must be regarded as accessories either before or after the betting and found them guilty under Section 109, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4(2) of the Gaming Act. This is clearly wrong as no particular person is found to have committed the offence under Section 4(2) of the Act, which the petitioners in this case could be said to have abetted. The learned Public Prosecutor has not attempted to support the conviction on this ground.2. He urged however that the conviction could be upheld on two other grounds. First, he contended tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »