Chennai Court August 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.
A.R.L.S.V.L. Sevugan Chettiar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad198; (1940)2MLJ753
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings with regard to about 3 1/2 acres of land acquired by the Karaikudy Municipality for purposes of a burning ground. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per acre. The appellant, as the trustee of a Devasthanam, claimed before the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai that the award ought to have befen at the rate of Rs. 6,000 an acre. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Collector's award was an adequate award and confirmed it, and in deciding the question of costs, he held that it was the appellant himself personally, and not the Devasthanam which he represented, who ought to pay costs to the Collector. Against that order, the appellant has filed this appeal. There is no appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge with regard to the amount awarded.2. The main point taken in the appeal is that the Subprdinate Judge dealing with this matter under the Land Acquisition Act had no jurisdi...
In Re: Guruswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad323; (1940)2MLJ1063
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint against the first accused is only under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code and accused 2 to 4 were not parties to the proceedings under the Legal Practitioners' Act. A complaint of the Court is not necessary for prosecuting these accused for an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code nor does any question of evading the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise as in Appadurai Nainar, In re : (1935)69MLJ812 . The Court was Moved to make a complaint against them and the making of a complaint by the Court for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was considered unnecessary as accused 2 to 4 could be prosecuted for the graver offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code without a complaint of the Court There is therefore no ground for interference and the revision petition is dismissed....
Srimat Paruvastu Pattabhirama China Govindacharyulu Vs. Punyamurthula ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad860; (1941)2MLJ674
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an action for damages for libel filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of certain allegations made by the latter in writing to the Superintendent of Post Offices concerning an appointment to the branch post office at Vedapalli. This was in December, 1932. On the 8th February, 1933, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant requiring him to tender an unconditional apology within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice and threatening a civil or criminal action in case he failed to do so. On the 26th February, 1933, the defendant sent a reply stating that the allegations made by him in his petition were not false, that he never intended to harm his reputation and that he was sorry that the allegations which he had made should have given rise to any misapprehension in regard to his intention. Of course this was not an unconditional apology as required by the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a c...
Bala Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowment Board by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ615
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal is from the decree of the Additional District Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 2 of 1937 dismissing a suit instituted under Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act for setting aside a scheme settled by the Board, on the preliminary ground that the plaintiffs who were the trustees of the religious endowment in question, namely, Sri Kannikaparameswari Amman temple at Peria Nagaman in Pollachi Taluk were estopped from questioning the scheme. This defence of estoppel was raised by the Board (first defendant) though the right of recourse to a Civil Court from the order of the Board settling a scheme was intended to be negatived in this manner. It is difficult to understand how the Board which dealt with this matter of settling a scheme in a judicial capacity after hearing the parties and taking evidence can be said to have been prejudiced so as to attract the doctrine of estoppel. Assuming however that the Board is under no disability, so to say...
Bembiri Kothanath Devaki Kutti Amma's son Padmanabha Nayar Vs. Chali P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ242
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question whether notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is necessary in a suit instituted against a person who was at the time of the cause of action a public officer and is sued in respect of his act as such public officer, but has ceased to be a public officer by the time the suit was instituted.2. The petitioner was an acting adhikari in which capacity he attached the respondent's land for arrears of revenue. To raise the attachment, the respondent paid a sum of money. The present suit is to recover an amount alleged to be in the hands of the petitioner in excess of the amount due towards revenue. There is no doubt that the petitioner at the time of the receipt of this money came within the definition of a public officer and that his act in receiving the money from the plaintiff was one which he purported to do in his official capacity. If, therefore, he is to be made to refund an excess collection, the suit is one which...
Balavenkatarama Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad79
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal is from the decree of the additional District Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 2 of 1937 dismissing a suit instituted under Section 63, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, for setting aside a scheme settled by the Board, on ' the preliminary ground that the plaintiffs who were the trustees of the religious endowment in question namely Sri Kannika-parameswari Amman temple at Peria Nagaman in Pollachi taluk were estopped from questioning the scheme. This defence of estoppel was raised by the Board (defendant 1) though the right of recourse to a civil Court from the order of the Board settling a scheme was intended to be nagatived in this manner. It is difficult to understand how the Board which dealt with this matter of settling a scheme in a judicial capacity after hearing the parties and taking evidence can be said to have been prejudiced so as to attract the doctrine of estoppel. Assuming however that the Board is under no disability, so to say, of put...
Pyda Suryanarayanamurthi Vs. the Municipal Council, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ338
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit instituted by the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 569-12-0 of which Rs. 112-8-0 is claimed as the balance of rent due and the remaining sum of Rs. 451-4-0 as representing a sum of money wrongfully appropriated by the respondent towards the property tax claimed to be due from the petitioner to the respondent. The respondent is the Municipal Council, Cocanada. The petitioner's advocate did not contend that if the Municipal Council were entitled to recover the property tax from the petitioner, the former could not adjust the arrears against the rents claimed by the petitioner. But what he contended was that no property tax at all was leviable in respect of the house in suit.2. The plaintiff purchased the suit house on the 23rd of March, 1933. A portion of the house was rented by the Municipal Council from the previous owner and was--and is even now--being used for the purpose of accommodating a school run ...
S. Gopalaswami Gounder Vs. K. Krishnaswami Gounder (interim Liquidator ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad53; (1940)2MLJ594
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Gentle, J., on a misfeasance summons taken out by the liquidator of the Pollachi Vellala Union Mills Company, Limited. The liquidator alleged that the appellant, who had been the manager of the company, was liable under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act to pay two sums of money, one of Rs. 3,448-10-6 and the other of Rs. 700-7-0. The liquidator also asked that an order be passed against the appellant, directing him to produce all books, papers, documents and correspondence relating to the company which were still in his possession. The learned Judge held that the: appellant Was not liable ill the sum of Rs. 3,448-10-6 and the liquidator withdrew the summons so far as Rs. 700-7-0 was concerned. With regard to the books it was said that the appellant had wrongfully retained the following : (1) The inventory or stock book; (2) the directors' circulation book; (3) the shareholders' circulation book; and (4) t...
In Re: Sankappa Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad326
Gentle, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara of the offence of murder under Section 802, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to death. The appellant is Sankappa Shetty and the deceased was his wife, Kaveri. They had been married for eight years and had four children, issues of the marriage, of the ages, between seven years and 18 months. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the house of Honnaya Hegde who is the uncle of the mother of the deceased. P.W. 2, Hoovamma, is the wife of Honnaya Hegde. In the community to which the accused and the deceased belonged, it is the custom for the husband to bear the expenses of the wife's confinement. Eighteen months before the death of the deceased, as her parents were dead, the deceased went to the house of P.W. 2 in Kuthavoor village for her confinement. The appellant was unable to bear the cost of the confinement or for his wife to return to him at his own village about 11 miles distant, and...
Venugopal Pillai and ors. Vs. Thirugnanavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad934; (1940)2MLJ427
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 3 to 6 from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 11th October, 1937, in O.S. No. 4 of 1933, a suit to recover mesne profits for fasli 1333 in respect of certain properties together with interest thereon. There was an earlier suit between the parties which related to these very properties for cancelling a certain lease granted in respect of them by the plaintiff's great-grandmother (second defendant) on the 8th of. August, 1923, for three years in favour of the first defendant. The properties in question belonged to the plaintiff who was. then a minor under the testamentary guardianship of the second defendant, the great-grandmother who had been appointed to manage the properties by the will of the plaintiff's father, one Thangaswami, dated 6th July, 1915. The testator died a few days later and in the previous suit there was no dispute as to the genuineness of the will. That suit was decreed and the appeal from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »