Chennai Court October 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Polisetti Venkataratnam Vs. Dhulipudi Surya Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad500; (1941)1MLJ156
Wadsworth, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise the question whether Section 23 of the Madras Act IV of 1938 applies to sales in execution of decrees for arrears of rent under the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The decree in each of these cases was passed in either 1934 or 1935. The sales were all held on the same date, 10th December, 1937. On 20th January, 1938, the tenants applied for challans with a view to payment of the decreed amounts but, instead of paying, on the following day they filed applications purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 192 of the Estates Land Act, praying that the sales may be set aside on the ground of irregularity etc. Act IV of 1938 came into force in March, 1938 and on 9th April, 1938, when the sale proceeds were lying in Court and no sale certificate had been issued, the judgment-debtors withdrew their application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, and instead filed applications under Sections 15 and 23 ...
Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Vs. Konathala Jagg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad600; (1941)1MLJ523
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment filed by the plaintiff who is the proprietor of the Anakapalli Estate against the defendants who are his tenants in possession of the suit land covered by Patta No. 223 of Anakapalli village on the ground that they have diverted a portion of the holding for non-agricultural purposes by digging up the land and laying foundations for constructing a superstructure thereon and also by enclosing another portion of the holding with a compound wall the result of which according to the plaintiff was that 14 cents of land would become unfit for use for agricultural purposes. The defendants pleaded that their intention was to erect a farm house for storing the grain harvested on the holding and for other agricultural purposes. The learned Deputy Collector was of the opinion that the intention of the defendants was not to store the grain raised ,on the land but to store articles in respect whereof they were carrying on a...
In Re: Vallabhareddi Ramireddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad25
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The presumption under Section 56, Madras Forest Act, (Act 5 of 1882), is expressly restricted to proceedings taken under that Act or in consequence of anything done under that Act and there is no evidence in this case that the timber in question was stolen from any reserve, forest. The conviction of the petitioners under Section 411, Penal Code, is therefore set aside and the fines if levied will be refunded....
Kadirvelu Chettiar Vs. Kempu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad315; (1940)2MLJ877
Mockett, J.1. The point to which Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar has directed a very interesting and careful argument does not appear to have been decided in any reported case. It can be very simply stated. On the 20th September, 1933, there was a decree in favour of the present petitioner against respondents 1 to 3 in this petition for Rs. 320-7-0. The respondents (the defendants in the suit) preferred a Civil Revision Petition early in 1934. It is numbered, I am told, 92 of 1934, and So it must obviously have been very early in the year. On the 31st of March, 1934, the decree-holder transferred his decree. On the 20th of September, 1934, the transferee decree-holder was recognised by Court. On the 6th of May, 1936, the Civil Revision Petition was heard and decided. The decree of the 20th September, 1933, was set aside and a re-trial was ordered. Before the Civil Revision Petition was decided, the transferee decree-holder had realised the amount of the decree from the judgment-debtors, the pr...
Parameswara Menon Vs. Kotana Narayana Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ580
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was a decree-holder in a Court of the Cochin State, who executed his decree by the sale of properties in British India. The judgment-debtor applied under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to set aside that sale and the lower appellate Court has ordered it to be set aside. It seems to me that the order is wrong. Section 23 is available only to an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. This must mean that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act with reference to the particular matter and not generally. The judgment-debtor in question having got this sale set aside cannot apply for any benefit under the Act unless he can get the decree amended under Section 19. That cannot be done as the procedure under Section 19 can only be applied by the Court which passed the decree, that is, in this case by the foreign Court to which this Act has no application. It seems to me to follow that the judgment-debtor is not an agriculturist entitled to the ben...
Gorle Satyanarayana Vs. Gorle Peddi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad362; (1940)2MLJ940
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order dismissing an application under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that it was presented in the wrong Court. The application was in fact presented to the appellate Court, whereas in accordance with the decision in Rentala Gangaraju v. Bikkina Bulli Ramayya : AIR1939Mad483 , it should have been presented in the Court of First Instance. The decision upon which the lower Court proceeded took a view of the law which was by no means universally accepted before that decision appeared and it cannot be said that the applicant in applying to the Court which actually passed the decree which he desired to scale down was going contrary to the obvious meaning of the section under which his application was framed. It was only by reading Section 19 along with Section 20 that this Court arrived at the conclusion that the proper Court to receive an application under Section 19 was the Court of First Instance. We must therefore tak...
The Raja of Vizianagaram (Died) Represented by the Manager and Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad411; (1941)1MLJ314
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question which arises on this petition is with regard to the effect of the second paragraph of Section 25 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The first paragraph of the section states that a ryot admitted by the landholder to possession of ryoti land shall not, unless otherwise provided in the Act, be bound to pay rent at a rate exceeding the rate prevailing for similar lands in the neighbourhood or, where the rate cannot be ascertained, anything more than what the Collector decides is fair and equitable. The second paragraph reads as follows:Nothing in this section precludes the landholder from receiving any premium when the ryot is admitted into possession, but a ryot so admitted shall under no circumstances become liable to make any payment to the landholder after his admission by way of premium or other consideration for such admission; nor shall any holding of the ryot be subjected to any charge in respect of any such premium or conside...
In Re: B.K. Narayana Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad324
ORDERKrishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The, accused B.K. Narayana Reddi was tried along with two others, namely Devanai Ammal and Ethiraja Pillai on 15th, 16th and 19th August last. The trial resulted in the conviction of Devanai Ammal and Ethiraja Pillai and they are now serving their respective terms of imprisonment. So far as Narayana Reddi is concerned, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty by 5 against 4 with the result that I ordered the discharge of the jury. I decided that it was a fit case for Narayana Reddi to be tried again on the charge framed against him. At the request of his counsel I ordered his retrial by myself during this sessions. The case comes on for trial tomorrow, 3rd October 1940. Today the Crown Prosecutor makes an application for production before Court of the two prisoners aforesaid, namely Devanai Ammal and Ethiraja Pillai so that they may be examined and their evidence taken. The first question that arises is whether it is permissible for the Crown to exam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›