Chennai Court October 1940 Judgments
Desayi Venkatranga Reddi and ors. Vs. Paraku Chinna Sithamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad440; (1941)1MLJ270
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Anantapur overruling certain objections raised by the appellants to the execution of a decree obtained by the respondents and allowing execution to proceed.2. The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided family, the third appellant being the father and the appellants 1 and 2 his minor sons. The decree passed against them directed delivery of possession of certain immoveable properties and payment of a certain sum as mesne profits. The immoveable properties have been delivered and the present execution proceedings relate to the recovery of the mesne profits. Under the decree, these were recoverable from the third appellant personally and from the family properties of all the appellants. There have been numerous applications to execute the decree but none of them has so far proved fruitful owing mainly to the laches of the respondents themselves in the conduct of those proceedings. It is unnecessary, howev...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shaik Silar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad681
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The immediate predecessors of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam were appointed Assistant Sessions Judges by name and there is no subsequent order appointing the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam by designation or name as Assistant Sessions Judge The reference is therefore accepted and the conviction of the accused is set aside. He will be retried according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Thoonga Vedan Alias Chinnama Naicken and ors. Vs. Perumal Goundan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad374; (1941)1MLJ43
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There was no order as to costs in the decision under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the award of costs by a subsequent order cannot be supported. The Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the order as to costs is set aside....
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Munigan Alias Munisami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad359; (1941)1MLJ227
Mockett, J.1. In this case the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Provincial Government has appealed against the acquittal on a charge of murder of one Munigan alias Munisami, who was the second accused in S. C. No. 18 of 1940 tried by the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot Division at Vellore. This accused was charged with another, one Chinnasami alias Chenga Reddi, with the murder on the 9th of February 1940 of a woman, one Thayarammal, near the village of Kainoor. There is no question whatever that Thayarammal was murdered. Her body was found on the morning of the 10th of February, and, according to P. W. 1, the doctor, there were three external injuries, wounds on it, and it is obvious that great violence had been used that could have been caused by M.O. 1, a bill-hook which is so commonly in evidence in these cases. According to the doctor, the death of Thayarammal might have occurred at about 2-30 in the morning on the 10th of February, which was a Saturday. Before the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyan Chettiar and anr. Vs. T.R. Ponnuchami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad727; (1941)1MLJ807
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Kamayan Chetti suspected the fidelity of his first wife. He had two sons by her. These are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises. He married a second wife Alagammal, but did not have any children or expect to get any by her. He married a third one, Veerammal by name, some time in 1919. She is the second defendant in the present litigation. A settlement deed was executed by Kamayan Chetti on the 15th April, 1919, (Ex. 1-a). Under this deed he settled some property on his second wife, some on the third and some on the third wife's father Ramalingam Chetti. The deed contains the following recital:As per agreement entered into at the time of the said marriage between the said third wife Veerammal,, the aforesaid person No. 3, Ramalinga Chetti, the father of the said person Veerammal and myself, the third wife, Veerammal shall during her life live in and enjoy for her maintenance the B schedule properties out of the undermentioned properties worth Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Thoongavadan and ors. Vs. Perumal Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad752
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There is no substance in the contention that Section 147, Criminal P.C., is not applicable and it was open to the Sub-divisional Magistrate to direct the petitioners to remove the dam put up by them on the surplus weir of the tank. But the further direction that they shall not cause any obstruction to the flow of water from the tank which would cause the, submersion of and damage to the crops of the opposite party is beyond the scope of Section 147, Criminal P.C., and to that extent the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is vacated. Otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Nilakanta Ayyar Vs. Thatha Pichaikaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad802
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The appeals were closed without any hearing on 1st November 1939 though one of the appeals was presented only that day and the order of the Joint Magistrate cannot for that reason be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the appeals are remanded to the District Magistrate of Tri-chinopoly for disposal by him or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkiteswara Aiyar Vs. T.N. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ9
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of appropriation with reference to an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The appellant, who is the applicant in the Court below, was the first defendant in this suit.2. The debt, so far as we need trace it back, starts with a principal of Rs. 7,250 as on 27th April, 1925, when a security bond was executed. Before the suit there were certain payments, the exact figure of which seems to be doubtful. The suit was filed in 1928 for a sum of Rs. 11,500. It ended in a decree which, so far as defendants 3 to 5 were concerned was based on a compromise and the same decree was made applicable to first and second defendants who allowed the suit to proceed ex parte. The decree provided for a payment of Rs. 12,116, within four months or in default for payment of Rs. 14,116, with interest at six per cent. No payment was made. The hypotheca mortgaged under the security bond was sold and realised Rs. 5,420 which was credited to the decr...
Tag this Judgment!Chapalamadugu Govindayya (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Suddapalli Ramamurthi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad524; (1941)1MLJ354
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit to enforce a mortgage dated 16th January, 1919 executed in favour of Chappalamadugu Govindayya by one, Yagnayya and his undivided son Ramamurti, and Hanumantha Rao for himself and as guardian of his sons Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana who are defendants 2 and 3 in this suit. All the members of the family of Hanumantha Rao are also impleaded as defendants herein besides Ramamurti, the son of Yagnayya. The said Ramamurti, Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana are impleaded as trustees of Seetaramaswami and Anjaneya temples on the ground that the father of the 1st defendant Yagnayya, and Hanumantha Rao the father of Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana were trustees of the said temples. The reason for the inclusion of these defendants in the capacity of trustees apart from their individual capacity is that items 19 and 20 of the plaint schedule property which are also comprised in the said deed of mortgage are properties dedi...
Tag this Judgment!N.A.R. Rm. Raman Chettiar Vs. P.N. Muthupalaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad580; (1941)1MLJ423
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1931 a Nattukottai Chettiar named V. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar, was adjudicated an insolvent by the District Court of Amherst, Burma. The insolvent's estate was said to include certain immovable property in the Ramnad District, and in consequence the District Court of Amherst requested the District Court of Ramnad to aid it under Section 77 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the sale of the property.2. The District Court of Ramnad, as it was bound to do acted on the request of the Amherst Court and on the 29th of August, 1934 sold the property through the Official Receiver, the purchaser being the respondent. A month later, the appellant filed an application in the Amherst Court under Section 4 of the Act, in which he claimed that the property which had been sold by the Ramnad Court belonged, not to the insolvent, but to his daughter by virtue of an arbitration award made in the year 1916. The appellant claimed title to the property by reason of a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »