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.
In Re: Muddamsetti Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad489; (1941)1MLJ236
Burn, J.1. These eight appellants were tried jointly by the learned Sessions Judge of Kistna on charges arising out of offences committed at about 9 p.m. on the 19th of February last in Masulipatam town at a place called Javarpet Junction. There was a disturbance at that place and time in the course of which one N. Venkataswami was fatally wounded, another man named Viraswami (P.W. 7) was very seriously injured, a police-constable named Antony (P.W. 4) was slightly injured and one Chandramouli (P.W. 8) was severely wounded in the foot. The first three accused were alleged to have been armed with spears and the other five with sticks. On these facts the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; he separately charged the second and the third accused with the murder of Venkataswarni. The first accused was separately charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to Viraswami, and the...
Raju Chettiar Alias Ramasami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ramakkal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad437; (1941)1MLJ305
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul setting aside the decree passed by the District Munsif of Periyakulam dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground that she had failed and neglected to perform a condition precedent on the performance of which she was granted an adjournment of the suit.2. The facts are these. The first respondent filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen for a declaration that the decree and subsequent proceedings in O.S. No. 156 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam, are void and not binding on her and for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties together with mesne profits. She obtained leave to file the suit in forma pauperis. The defendants contested the suit and issues were framed on the 20th August, 1937 embodying the questions in dispute. The trial was fixed for the 12th October, 1937. On that day the plaintiff was not ready and the su...
Chelikani Kondayya Rao and ors. Vs. Uppalapati Naganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad367; (1941)1MLJ336
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the mokhasadars of a village falling within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. On the 7th October, 1920, they sold to the first respondent the kudivaram right in their kambattam, or home farm lands, on; conditions to which I shall refer in some detail presently. On the 31st March, 1934, the appellants filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for the recovery of the rent due by the sale of the lands. It was contended by the respondents that by the deed of the 7th October, 1920, the, appellants had converted the lands from kambattam into ryoti lands and consequently the Revenue Court, not the Civil Court, had jurisdiction. Before the Subordinate Judge the appellants admitted that the village was an 'estate' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, as amended in 1936, but they averred that the village was not an estate within the meaning of the Act as it stood at the time o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›