Chennai Court December 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.
Raman Chettiar Vs. Perumal Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad397; (1941)1MLJ256
Wadsworth, J.1. The respondent on 26th June, 1932 executed a promissory note for Rs. 463 in renewal of two earlier notes, the principal of which totalled Rs. 350. On 26th June, 1934 Rs. 111-8-0 was paid for interest and Rs. 323 was paid for principal, leaving a balance of Rs. 140 due. On 15th December 1934, Rs. 8 was paid for interest and Rs. 40 for principal having a balance of Rs. 100. The suit was filed in December, 1937 for Rs. 100 and subsequent interest and a decree was given on 4th March, 1938. In scaling down this decree under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938, the lower Court has treated the appropriations towards principal as having been made, not towards the actual principal of the suit note but towards the notional principal as calculated according to the explanation to Section 8. This is an error. The parties actually intended to appropriate these payments towards the real principal of the suit note which comprised both principal and interest of the earlier notes. The de...
In Re: Papellugari Veera Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad576; (1941)1MLJ363
Wadsworth, J.1. The basis of this revision petition is the assertion that the petitioners are not parties to any suit and that they cannot therefore be prosecuted by means of a complaint under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners rely on the Full Bench ruling in Govinda Aiyar v. Rex (1918) 36 M.L.J. 448 : I.L.R. 42 Mad. 540 , which has a rather misleading headnote. The decision really related to a case falling under Section 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code and had nothing to do with cases falling under Section 195 (1) (b) in which the accused need not be a party. Here one of the offences alleged is an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in connection with a proceeding before the District Munsif. Such an offence clearly falls under Section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code and a complaint under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. The fact that the District Munsif has also complained that the facts establish offences under other sec...
Sankhavarm Naligindla Venkata Rangacharyulu Vs. Rangasubba Akkappa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad569; (1941)1MLJ492
Wadsworth, J. 1. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note and he put forward the defence that on the date when the suit promissory note was executed he was a minor by reason of the fact that a guardian of his property was appointed in August, 1930, so that by the force of Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act his minority was extended beyond the date on which the suit promissory note was executed. The courts below permitted the plaintiff to meet this contention by showing that the appointment of the guardian was obtained by collusion between the minor's relatives and it has been held that this order is consequently void as against the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff can treat the defendant as still a major in spite of the courts' order which has the effect of making him a minor. I may say at once that the basis for the finding of the courts below that this guardianship order was obtained by a fraud on the court seems to me of doubtful legality. The facts found ar...
In Re: Marana Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad560; (1941)1MLJ364
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Karuppa Chuckli by kicking him on the abdomen and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.2. The deceased owed one anna to the appellant and the latter demanded repayment. The deceased promised to pay later and the appellant, is stated to have kicked him twice on the abdomen remarking 'How long am I to wait'. The deceased collapsed and died soon after.3. The cause of death was shock due to the kicking and P. W. 7 a disinterested witness not to mention P. W. 4 the widow speak to the alleged kicking. P. W. 5 was informed about it soon after, and the story of the appellant that he merely pushed the deceased and went away is incredible. But there was no mark of injury external or internal, and it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended or knew that by kicking on the abdomen as he did he was likely to endanger life. The conviction under Section 304...
Venkateswara Sarma, Styled Gnanasivacharia Swamigal, Matathipathi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ644
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following questions:(1) Where a manager of a Hindu religious institution makes an alienation of the property of the institution for valuable consideration and the succeeding manager seeks to impeach that alienation by suit, will Article 134-B apply when there is an interval of time between the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager and the election or appointment of the subsequent manager?(2) If such succeeding manager happens to be a minor at the date of his election or appointment, will he be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act?(3) If Article 144 be held applicable to the case, when does adverse possession commence? Is it from the date of the election or appointment of the succeeding manager or from, the date of the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager who effected the alienation?2. The reference arises out of Appeal No. 26 of 1937, which was pre...
In Re: Thotabalija Puchala Somanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad708; (1941)2MLJ253
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced, the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. There was house breaking by night and theft in P.W. l's building on the night of 27th February, and stolen properties were recovered on the information of each of the appellants from the place shown by him on 1st March. So the appellants were charged in the alternative under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and they denied the alleged recovery. The trial was by jury and the verdict was unanimous. There was no misdirection and on the evidence the jury could reasonably have convicted the appellants under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction and the sentence of the first appellant cannot be said to be excessive. That the second appellant is...
K.A. Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. S. Ramanujachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ322
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of another dispute between the Thengalais and Vadagalais. In the village of Thirukkannaraangai in the Tanjore District is a Thengalai temple known as the Sri Bakthavathsala Perurmal Temple. The dispute is with reference to the twenty days' festival, which commences in the month of December and ends in January and is known as Pagal Pathu and Ra Pathu. It is common ground that up to 1909 the right to conduct the festival, including the right to recite the Vedam, Mantrapushpam and Prabandam, was possessed by the Thengalais. In 1900 a number of Vadagalais filed a suit (O.S. No. 506 of 1900) in the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvarur for a declaration that a certain shrine in the temple had been dedicated to the spiritual leader of the Vadagalais and they obtained a decree, which was confirmed by this Court on the 25th November, 1909. The Vadagalais maintain that the decree finally decided that the right to conduct the festival ...
Pudikutty Unneeri Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad657; (1941)1MLJ624
Horwill, J.1. The appellant had an old house occupying the site A, B, D, C in the plan filed by him. That house fell into a state of disrepair and the Commissioner of the Calicut Municipality ordered its demolition. The appellant wished to reconstruct the house and he submitted a plan proposing to build the house on E, F, D, G. That plan was approved and a licence (Ex. D) was issued in which a note was added 'The street alignment of 6 feet--Mooriet Road and the Coast Road on the west should be strictly observed.' This note was added to remind the appellant of the provisions of Section 167 of the District Municipalities Act to the effect that no person should construct any portion of any building within a street alignment as defined under Section 166. The findings of the Court below are that after the building was constructed in accordance with this plan, the appellant added a pial on the remaining area of his site, that is, the land lying between G, E, F, D and A, B, D, C. When the Mun...
Sree Rajah Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu of Nuzvid V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad414; (1941)1MLJ479
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant as the owner of a tank in which there are fish is liable to land cess under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. The appellant let the right to catch the fish in the tank, whereupon the Collector of Kistna called upon him to pay land cess based upon the annual value of the fishery. Having been compelled to pay the sum demanded the appellant filed a suit to recover the amount with interest. There were other demands which the appellant had met under protest and the appellant asked for the repayment of all the sums recovered from him. The District Munsif of Bezwada who tried the suit held that it did not lie, and accordingly dismissed it. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge it was held that the appellant was not liable to pay land cess in respect of the fishery, but that he was liable for the other demands made by the Collector. In S. A. No. 161 of 1935 the Government appealed against that part of...
Peta Venkayya Vs. S. Seethayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad884
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint was under Sections 426 and 447, Penal Code, and the cutting of the leaves was not disputed. That the accused were found to be entitled to the leaves would not make the complaint false and frivolous or vexatious and the order under IS. 250, Criminal P.C., cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the amount of compensation if levied will be refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »