Chennai Court September 1939 Judgments
In Re: Kataru Chinna Papiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad136; (1940)2MLJ35
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Cuddapah of three offences of murder and has been sentenced to death.2. This is a somewhat unusual case; the appellant single-handed is supposed to have killed a Forest Guard and, a Forest Watcher and another man. The prosecution case was, that the appellant and a little boy examined as P.W. 2 trespassed into the Forest Reserve near Thimmayagaripalli before daylight on the 16th March, 1939, and that they cut wood in the forest and were making their way to the village when they were caught by the Forest 'Guard Kesavalu, Forest Watcher Somayya and another man Penchulagadu a relation of Kesavalu. These three are supposed to have stopped the appellant and P.W. 2 and the appellant is supposed to have killed them one after the other: Kesavalu first, Penchulagadu second and Somayya third. Kesavalu and Penchulagadu are supposed to have been unarmed but Somayya was armed with a bill-hook which by the looks of it is qui...
Tag this Judgment!Jami Venkatappadu and ors. Vs. Kannepalli Ramamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad131; (1939)2MLJ853
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are revision petitions from the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore and of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole on certain applications presented by the judgment-debtors under Sections 19 and 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the judgment-debtors being the defendants in a mortgage suit instituted in 1929 in the Sub-Court at Berhampore in which the final decree was passed on 9th March, 1933. The application for execution was made in August, 1934, (E.P. No. 79 of 1934) and it was during the pendency of this application for execution that Orissa was constituted into a separate Province. The execution proceedings continued to be carried on in the Berhampore Sub-Court and some of the mortgaged properties, all of which have been since the formation of the Orissa Province come within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court at Chicacole in this Presidency, were sold on 26th July, 1937, and they were purchased by the decree-holders themselves after they had ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ahamed Ibrahim Rowther Vs. Allapichai Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad534; (1940)1MLJ292
Wadsworth, J.1. The question to be decided in both the revision petition and the appeal is whether the recording of satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif of Tuticoiin at the instance of an attaching decree-holder is valid and consequently whether the refusal to record satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 95 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam under which the attachment of the Tuticorin decree was made is invalid, so that the latter decree becomes amenable to attachment at the instance of a third decree-holder. The facts are rather complicated and I will endeavour to state them in their simplest form. We are concerned with three decrees:(1) O.S. No. 11 of 1931 on the file of the Tuticorin District Munsif which was a decree in favour of Ahmad Ibrahim, the judgment-debtor being Alia Pichai;(2) O.S. No. 13 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, a decree assigned to K. Mohideen, the judgment-debtor the s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balija Pullayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad88
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Kurnool of abducting a woman with intent that she might be murdered (Section 364, Penal Code) and also of murdering the same woman (Section 302). He has sentenced the appellant to death for the offence of murder and to transportation for life for abduction. The woman, whom the appellant is said to have abducted and murdered was a Kapa Gouramma, a widow who lived in Rajoli in the Nizam's Dominions and also had a house in Kurnool. She had two daughters (P.Ws. 4 and 5) who-were apparently living by prostitution, though P.W. 5 at the time of the murders of Gouramma was said to be in poor state of health. The appellant was on terms of illicit intimacy with the younger daughter, P.W. 4. It is alleged that he was supposed to be paying her Rs. 6, a month but that his payments were irregular and P.W. 4's mother objected to her association with the appellant on account of his meanness. It was alleged that he had once gi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Paluvadi Venkatramayya Alias Paluvadi Venkataramanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ878
Burn, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in C.A. No. 7 of 1939. That appeal was presented to the learned Sessions Judge from the decision of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Markapur, in C.C. No. 48 of 1938. In that case the First Class Magistrate was dealing with twenty-four persons who had been tried by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Giddalore in C.C. No. 593 of 1937. The learned Sub-Magistrate found all the 24 accused persons guilty of rioting (Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code), wrongful confinement (Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code), assault with intent to dishonour '(Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code) and simple hurt (Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He convicted them under those sections but considering that they were persons who might properly be dealt with under Section 380, Criminal Procedure Cole, he submitted the case to the Sub-Divi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthuswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ11
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In the village of Negamam in the Coimbatore District there are two factions and there is strong enmity between them. Their enmity dates back to the Legislative Assembly elections held in 1934, if not earlier. At the present time the factions are opposing one another with regard to the management of an institution known as the Lakshmi Vilas and Dravyasagaya Nidhi. Limited and the management of a temple known as the Kannikaparameswari temple. On the 23rd September, 1938, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pollachi served notice on twelve persons under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute security bonds under Section 107. According to an affidavit of the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 245 of 1939 filed in the present proceedings rioting had taken place on that day. The accusations against these twelve persons, who have been referred to as the counter-petitioners, are set o...
Tag this Judgment!Noothalapati China Venkayya Vs. Perla Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad203
ORDERKunhi Raman, J.1. This is a petition presented against an order made by the learned District Munsif of Guntur in I.A. No. 2920 of 1936 in O.S. No. 552 of 1935 on the file of his Court. The application before the lower Court was for review of the judgment and decree passed by it in the suit mentioned above on 31st July 1936. The application has been granted by the Court below and this petition is presented on behalf of defendant 3 in the suit. The facts are briefly as follows : In the suit that was disposed of by the lower Court there was an issue framed in the following terms:Whether the plea of defendant 3 regarding his sale is barred by res judicata by the decision in O.S. No. 370 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur and A.S. No. 46 of 1934 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur.2. In the judgment pronounced by the lower Court it was mentioned that this issue was not pressed at the time arguments were advanced by the learned advocates. The petition for review...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Paluvadi Venkataramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad111
Burn, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in C.A. No. 7 of 1939. That appeal was presented to the learned Sessions Judge from the decision of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Markapur, in C.C. No. 48 of 1938. In that case the First Class Magistrate was dealing with 24 persons who had been tried by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Giddalore in C.C. No. 593 of 1937. The learned Sub-Magistrate found all the 24 accused persons guilty of rioting (Section 147, I.P.C.,) wrongful confinement (Section 341, I.P.C.,) assault with intent to dishonour (Section 355, I.P.C.,) and simple hurt (Section 323, I.P.C.,) read with Section 149, I.P.C. He convicted them under those Sections but considering that they were persons who might properly be dealt with under Section 582, Criminal P.C., he submitted the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the provisions of Section 562(1) proviso. The learned First Class Magistrate dea...
Tag this Judgment!G. Abdul Khadir Saheb Vs. V. Pachaiyappa Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad9; (1939)2MLJ841
ORDER1. This is an application made under Sections 24 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for the transfer of S.C.S. No. 11852 of 1938 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, from that Court to the City Civil Court, Madras, to be tried along with O.S. No. 157 of 1939 on the file of the latter Court on the ground that the two suits are connected and that it is convenient that they should be tried by the same Court. A preliminary objection has been raised to the application on the ground that under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, there could be no transfer of the kind asked for. Reliance is placed on Section 3 of the Madras City Civil Court Act which gives jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to try certain suits excluding suits cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, Madras. There is, however, a distinct provision in Section 5 of the same Act to the effect that every person appointed a Judge of the City Civil Court shall be by virtue of his office a Judge of the Court of Sm...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramu Mudali Vs. Shobagmul Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad628; (1940)1MLJ329
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the second defendant in a suit on a promissory note which was decreed without contest. In bar of execution of that decree, he raised the objection that the suit was bad and the decree a nullity because the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit constituted an unregistered partnership. The plaint filed on 27th June, 1935, describes the plaintiffs by their names only and contains no allegation that the claim is made on behalf of the firm or that the promissory note was executed to the firm, nor does it pray for a decree in favour of the firm. But Clause 2-a of the plaint avers that the two plaintiffs are 'joint partners', that the first plaintiff is the managing partner of the firm and that therefore he is signing the plaint on behalf of the second plaintiff also. Thus the fact that the plaintiffs constitute a firm is pleaded merely to show that the first plaintiff has authority to represent the second plaintiff. The plaint is not in other resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »