Chennai Court February 1940 Judgments
In Re: Annapurni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad816
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The ignorance of the petitioner is no excuse and there is no ground for interference with her conviction under Section 4(1)(a), Madras Prohibition Act. But the fine is excessive and it is reduced to Rs. 10. Otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Subhadrammal Vs. Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad590; (1940)1MLJ715
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is the sum standing to the credit of one D.G. Chetty in Provident Fund. D.G. Chetty was a Government servant who died in the year 1937. In 1928, the present plaintiff, who is D.G. Chetty's widow, filed a suit against him for separate maintenance and in May, 1929, was given a decree. In August 1929, D.G. Chetty made a fresh nomination under the rules of the Provident Fund by which he appointed the first defendant, his mistress, as the person entitled to receive the amount of the fund in case of his death.2. The question before us is whether the plaintiff or the first defendant is entitled to this money, or to put it in other words, whether the nomination made by the subscriber in August, 1929, is a valid nomination under the rules or not. The learned Additional City Civil Judge has held that the nomination is valid and comes within the scope of Note 1 to Rule 17. Rule 17 deals with the disposition of a provident fund upon the death of a subsc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Natesa Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad649; (1940)1MLJ760
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complainant was cheated and parted with the money at Trichinopoly and the case can be tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly - vide Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The records will therefore be returned and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate will proceed with, the case in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad620; (1940)1MLJ690
Horwill, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act.2. The position in these two suits is a very curious one. The plaintiff was the same in the two suits and, before they were actually filed, he seems to have come to some arrangement with the two second defendants; for they filed no written statement. The common first defendant was the Secretary of State; and all the issues were framed because of the written statement of the first defendant. The trial Court found that the Secretary of State was not a necessary party; and while decreeing the suits, as the second defendant in each case did not oppose, ordered that the first defendant be given his costs on the ground that he was not a necessary party.3. The appeals were heard by two Judges. In A.S. No. 233 of 1936, the Judge held that the Secretary of State was not a necessary party; but that his attitude in supporting the case of the second defendant and joining issue with the plaintiff disent...
Tag this Judgment!Meherwan Jehangir and ors. Vs. Dhunbhai Kavasha Mistri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ913
1. These appeals both raise questions relating to the will of a Parsi gentleman by name Nanabhai Hirjee who died on 30th June, 1916. Appeal No. 199 of 1937 is preferred by the plaintiffs who represented the interest of Nanabhai Hirjee's daughter, Meherbai Jehangir, the first plaintiff (who is now dead) being her husband; plaintiffs 2 to 7 are her children. They sued to recover a half share in a legacy given to Nanabai's widow Bhikaijee and also to recover Meherbai's share in specific properties which are items 9 to 12 in the will. We are no longer concerned with Bhikaijee's legacy which has been validly dealt with by Bhikaijee herself in a will which excludes Meherbai. The claim in the appeal is therefore confined to the four items 9 to 12 in the will Ex. A. This will is a somewhat unusual document. Nanabhai was a merchant trading in Calicut. The will Ex. A. is dated 21st April, 1916. It enumerates firstly twelve items of property, items 1 to 6 being various movables connected with the...
Tag this Judgment!Surisetti Seethayyamma, Minor by Father and Next Friend Boddeda Sahebu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad906; (1940)2MLJ276
Burn, J.1. These are cross-appeals. The appellant in S.A. No. 149 of 1937 is the wife of the appellant in S.A. No. 185. In O.S. No. 9 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam the wife sued her husband and his father for separate maintenance alleging abandonment and cruelty. In O.S. No. 26 of 1934 the husband sued the wife for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that she was staying away from him without, proper cause. The learned Subordinate Judge tried both the suits together and came to the conclusion that the husband was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights because he had virtually abandoned his wife and because his offers to maintain her were not genuine or bona fide. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore dismissed the husband's suit and gave the wife a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem with Rs. 130 for arrears of maintenance. The unprofitable character of this litigation is sufficiently shown by the fact that the learned Su...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Ranganatha Aiyar Vs. Jayavelu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad627; (1940)1MLJ685
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal claims title to the western half of a certain house. The respondent was a decree-holder against a cousin of the appellant, who, according to the appellant, owned the eastern half. In execution of the decree, the respondent took delivery of the entire house. There was then an application under Order 21, Rule 100 by the appellant asking the Court to redeliver to him the western half of this house. During the progress of the inquiry into-that application, the respondent challenged the appellant in the following words:If the petitioner swears on oath that the western half of the suit house belongs to him solely and that he himself built it and at the time when the plaintiff went for taking delivery it was in his possession, then to the extent of the western half, the petition may be allowed.2. The appellant accepted the challenge and gave evidence on special oath in the affirmative on all the three points put to him by the respondent. This oath was o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Commissioner, Chittoor Municipalty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad685
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The marking of an irrelevant document in evidence is not a ground for ordering retrial and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate will dispose of the appeal in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Namburu Krishnamacharyulu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad614; (1940)1MLJ709
Pandrang Row, J.1. In this appeal which is preferred by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, through its President the only point pressed is that certain modifications in the scheme sanctioned by the District Judge of Guntur should be made. The scheme was one for the management of the well-known temple of Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswami at Mangalagiri in the Guntur District. This scheme has been in operation1 from 1917 onwards (vide Ex. A the Rajinama scheme). The present suit was instituted by a worshipper with the sanction of the Board for the removal of the existing trustees, for the appointment of proper trustees and for a modification of the scheme. The District Judge held that there was no necessity to remove any of the trustees or to consider any of the prayers in the plaint except the prayer for a modification of the scheme and directed certain modifications. It would appear that though the Board put its views before the Court in its written statement, nevertheless when the...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Salma Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad579
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The trial in the Sessions Court commences only after the charge is read over and the accused claims to be tried, and the preliminary objection that the proper remedy is an appeal against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be upheld. On the merits, the complaint of the respondent was referred by the police and she did not appear before the Magistrate. There was no proceeding in any Court and the view of the Assistant Sessions Judge that a complaint by the Magistrate is necessary for the prosecution of the respondent under Section 211, Penal Code, in respect of a cognizable offence is untenable. The order of discharge is therefore set aside and the Assistant Sessions Judge will proceed with the case in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »