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.
Sri Kasikananda Gnanacharya Swamigal Vs. Saravana Perumal Pillai and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad319; (1941)1MLJ257
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Chief Justice. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether a person who claims to come within Section 14 of the Limitation Act has to show that in pursuing his remedy in other proceedings he acted in good faith or whether the burden of showing lack of good faith is on his opponent. The appellant obtained a decree on a promissory note against one Nataraja Pillai on the 22nd October, 1930. On the 10th December, 1931, Nataraja Pillai sold certain immoveable properties to the respondents. On the 12th August, 1932, the appellant attached these properties in execution of the decree which he had obtained on the promissory note and at the sale, which was held on the 15th January, 1935, he purchased the properties. When he desired to enter into possession he was obstructed by the respondents, who claimed title by reason of their purchase of the properties on the 10th-December, 1931. On the 27th June, 1935, the appellant applied to the District ...
Chinnasami Pillai Vs. Annamalai Chetty, minor by guardian, the Head Cl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad309; (1941)1MLJ242
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal has been placed before a Full Bench of five Judges because it involves the consideration of the question whether. Pierce Leslie v. Perumal : AIR1918Mad580 was rightly decided. In that case it was held by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court that an application to a Court in British India to send a decree passed by it to a Court in a Native State for execution was not a step in aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Clause 5 of the Limitation Act and therefore did not give a fresh starting point for the period of limitation. The facts were these. On the 21st August, 1911 a decree for money was passed by a British Court in Cochin. On the 7th October, 1912 the decree-holder applied for an order transferring the decree to a District Court in the State of Travancore for execution. The application was granted and on the 13th November, 1912 the decree was transmitted to the District Court named in the application. As the executi...
HusaIn Batcha Sahib Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ374
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the mutuwalli and katheeb of a mosque in the village of Sattur, which is situated in the Wallajah Taluk of the North Arcot District. In the days of the Nawabs of the Carnatic a yeomiah allowance of Rs. 88-8-0 per annum was granted to the mutawalli of this mosque. The immediate predecessor of the appellant in the office of mutawalli was one Mohamed Ali, who died in the year 1918, While he held the office of mutawalli he was in receipt of this yeomiah allowance, which is now payable by the Government. After his death the Government paid this allowance to his widow, the second respondent in this appeal. The appellant's formal appointment to the office of mutawalli took place on the 17th December, 1919 and having taken up the duties of mutawalli he claimed to be entitled to the yeomiah allowance by virtue of his appointment, but the Government, refused to recognise the claim. Apparently the attitude taken up by the Government was that they...
V.S. Velayutha Pandaram Vs. S. Suryamurthi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ770
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the defendant from a decree of the District Court of West Tanjore made in favour of the respondent in a suit for recovery of the plaint mentioned jewels or their value Rs. 1,400 with interest. The jewels belonged to one Sundarambal who was the daughter of the appellant and the wife of the respondent. She died without leaving any issue and the dispute relates to the respondent's right to succeed to the jewels as her heir. This depends, of course, under the Hindu law, upon the form of Sundarambal's marriage to the respondent. The trial Court held that it was in the asura form and dismissed the respondent's claim. On appeal, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that it was in the Brahma form and accordingly decreed the suit. The appellant challenges the correctness of that conclusion in this appeal.2. It is well settled that prima facie every marriage under the Hindu law must be presumed to have taken place according to the ...
HussaIn Batcha Sahib Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad428
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the mutwalli and katheeb of a mosque in the village of Sattur which is situated in the Wallajah Taluk of the North Arcot District. In the days of the Nawabs of the Carnatic a yeomiah allowance of Rs. 88-8-0 per annum was granted to the mutwalli of this mosque. The immediate predecessor of the appellant in the office of mutwalli was one Mohamed AH who died in the year 1918. While he held the office of mutwalli he was in receipt of this yeomiah allowance which is now payable by the Government. After his death the Government paid this allowance to his widow, respondent 2 in this appeal. The appellant's formal appointment to the office of mutwalli took place on 17th December 1919 and having taken up the duties of mutwalli he claimed to be entitled to the yeomiah allowance by virtue of his appointment, but the Government refused to recognize the claim. Apparently, the attitude taken up by the Government was that they were entitled to pay the allowance to Moham...
A.S. Nagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Annapoorani Achi Alias Karuppayi Ac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad235; (1941)1MLJ164
1. Three questions arising out of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) have been referred for decision by a Full Bench and this Bench has been constituted for the purpose. The questions read as follows:(1) When a statutory rule giving a right of appeal is promulgated after a final order has been passed, will an appeal lie under that rule against that?'order? (2) Is Rule 8 of the rules framed under Madras Act IV of 1938 ultra vires? If so, (3) Is the decision in Pakkiri Muhammad Tharaganar v. U.T. Syed Sahib : AIR1940Mad418 , right in holding that an order under Section 19 of the Madras Act IV of 1938 is not appealable as falling under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code?2. It will be convenient to take the second question first, because if it is answered in the affirmative the first question will not call for an answer.3. The Act itself,, does not directly provide for an appeal against an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by the Act, but the Provincia...
Mavarakkandy Achuthan Nayar Vs. Thanniyatuthil Achuthan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad587; (1941)1MLJ502
Wadsworth, J.1. The suit promissory note bore two dates. The first was the Malayalam date corresponding to 15th November, 1934. The second was the English date 16th November, 1934. The suit was filed on the last day of limitation reckoned from the latter date and it has been held to be barred. It is contended that Section 25 of the Limitation Act applies and that only the English date can be looked to. As I read Section 25 it creates no presumption as to the date of a document but merely provides that periods of limitation shall be worked out according to the Gregorian calendar. The question is after all a simple question of fact to be decided by evidence and probabilities according to Section 96 of the Evidence Act. Clearly there has been a mistake in the document and one of these two dates must be wrong. The only question is which date is wrong and there is no legal presumption in favour of either. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that it is more likely that the Malayalam d...
In Re: S. Ramachandra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ187
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application by the respondent in the appeal to be allowed to file a memorandum of cross-objections in forma pauperis. The respondent was the plaintiff in the Court below and succeeded in part. The defendants have appealed and the respondent wishes to challenge that portion of the judgment which refused him his full claim. Order 44, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not allow an appeal in forma pauperis unless the Court, upon a perusal of the application and of the judgment and decree appealed from, sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. There is no special provision in the Code relating to the filing of cross-objections in forma pauperis, but when a respondent files cross-objections he is in fact filing a. cross-appeal and the same principle must be applied.2. The learned advocate for the respondent has quoted to us the decision of the Ra...
In Re: Kuruva Nagamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad870
Burn, J.1. The appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 769 was accused 2 and the appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 772 was acoused 1 in S.O. No. 89 of 1940 tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Kurnool. The charge against the accused was that accused 1 at the instigation of accused 2 had murdered Pedda Eangadu, the husband of accused 1, by means of poisoning. The prosecution theory was that the two accused were on terms of illicit intimacy, and that Pedda Eangadu was also incensed against accused 2 because accused 2 was keeping as his concubine the aunt of accused 1. In these circumstances the case was that accused 2 had supplied accused 1 with powdered root of aconite which accused 1 had mixed with the food prepared and served by her to her husband on the evening of 3rd July last.2. Pedda Eangadu died at about 10 P.M. on 3rd July and there is no reasonable doubt about the fact that he died of poisoning. The chemical examiner certified that 'aconte' was found in some vomited matter sent to him for inspection...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kanholi Kunhiraman Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad392; (1941)1MLJ44
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The respondent a postman was charged by the police with an offence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act for secreting two postal articles in course of transmission by post and he was committed for trial by the Court of Session of that offence. There was no complaint by order of or authority from the Director-General or Postmaster-General, and a preliminary objection was taken to the trial on the ground that the acts also constitute the minor offence under Section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act of detaining the postal articles, which according to Section 72 of the Indian Post Office Act cannot be taken cognizance of unless upon complaint made by order of or authority from the Director-General or Postmaster-General. The objection was upheld and the respondent was acquitted.2. Hence this appeal by the Provincial Government that the order of acquittal cannot be supported. The offence under Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act can be taken cognizance of w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »