Chennai Court January 1941 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: Subbaraya Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad658
Horwill, J.1. Fourteen men were charged by the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly with being members of a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, an offence punishable under Section 401, Penal Code. Of these fourteen accused, four have been acquitted. The remaining accused were sentenced each to two year's rigorous imprisonment. Of these ten accused convicted, five are here appealing. They are accused 3, 7, 8,12 and 13.2. Most of the accused are Ambalagars, a community connected with the Kallars and Maravars. Accused 1 to 3 are Pallas, accused 9, who has been acquitted, is a goldsmith. Accused 8 is a Brahmin. The main argument with regard to accused 8 is that there is very little evidence of association with the gang apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, the approver. The reason for this seems to be this, that this accused contributed more towards the organization of the gang than to the execution of the individual acts of theft or robbery. P.W. 1 says that ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Karuppana Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad356
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against an appellate order of acquittal. The respondents were convicted of offences under Section 147 and Sections 323 and 379 read with Section 149, Penal Code and an appeal was filed by them on 12th July 1940. The appeal was allowed the same day without notice to the officer appointed by the Provincial Government under Section 422, Criminal P.C. and the appellate order of acquittal cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the appeal is remanded to the District Magistrate of Ramnad for disposal according to law by him or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Gopal Alias Malayalathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad551; (1941)1MLJ475
Horwill, J.1. The house of P.W. 4 was broken into and in the process some panes of glass were broken. The only clue that the investigating officer was able to obtain was that on the broken panes of glass there were some impressions of fingers. These were photographed and magnified and sent to the Finger Print Bureau. The accused was arrested on suspicion and the impressions of all his fingers were taken. They were compared by an expert of the Bureau (P.W. 1), who has given evidence to the effect that the impressions found on the glass were those of two of the fingers, namely, the left index finger and the left ring finger of the accused. The Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate declared himself not satisfied by this evidence and gave the accused the benefit of the doubt. The Crown has appealed against this decision.2. The Court is not bound to accept the evidence of an expert, even though there are no special reasons for not accepting it; and it was certainly proper on the part of th...
Konda Boyan Vs. Palaniswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad114; (1941)2MLJ640
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for (he cancellation of one of two decrees obtained by the present appellant, the first defendant in the Court of first instance against the plaintiff. The facts which have been found by the Courts below make out a very unusual story. The plaintiff was a convict in jail. He had executed a promissory note in favour of the second defendant, which promissory note had been transferred to the first defendant and a small payment had been made to the first defendant after the assignment. It has been found by the Courts below that the first defendant evolved a very cunning conspiracy whereby his claim against the plaintiff was duplicated in such a way as not to arouse the suspicion of the plaintiff and to prevent him from defending the two suits, one filed upon a forged promissory : note and the other filed upon the genuine promissory note. According; to the findings of fact the first defendant, knowing that the plaintiff was in jail for...
In Re: Bhumireddi Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad598
Horwill, J.1. The four appellants and seven others were charged in the lower Court with rioting and murder by virtue of the provisions of both Section 34 and Section 149, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the tendency in cases of faction for one party to implicate all the leaders of the opposite faction; and he came to the conclusion that a case had been made out against the four appellants but that he was not quite satisfied that there were any more than the four persons present. The charges of rioting and of constructive murder therefore failed: He came to the conclusion that the nature of the injuries to the deceased person were not such as to indicate beyond all doubt that those who attacked him intended to kill him. He found appellants 1 and 2 (accused 1 and 4) guilty under Section 324, Penal Code, and appellants 3 and 4 (accused 7 and 8) guilty under Section 325, Penal Code, both these convictions presumably being by virtue of Section 34, Penal Code.2. The prosec...
Seemakurthi Manikyam Vs. Jonnavithula Manikyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad4; (1941)2MLJ671
Happell, J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition in execution of the decree obtained by him in Small Cause Suit No. 633 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif of Rajahmundry attached a sewing machine, a harmonium, a fiddle and a veena which belonged to his judgment-debtor, who was a Brahmin widow. The judgment-debtor filed an application for the release of the articles from attachment, and the order passed by the District Munsif of Rajahmundry on that application has given rise to this revision petition. The learned District Munsif finding that the judgment-debtor made her living by sewing and teaching music and that the sewing machine and musical instruments were consequently 'tools of an artisan' within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b) of the Civil Procedure Code allowed the application and released the articles from attachment. It is conceded for the petitioner that the finding that the sewing machine was a 'tool of an artisan' cannot be questioned. The only que...
Subbiah Ambalam Servai Vs. Unnamalai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad609; (1941)1MLJ580
King, J. 1. The petitioner in this case sued in the Court of the District Munsif of Devakottai to recover a sum of Rs. 150 which was entrusted by him at Penang on the 24th November, 1934 with one Mariappan, the agent of Ramaswami Chettiar, for the purpose of remitting that money to British India. The suit was filed on the 24th November, 1937 on the last day permitted by limitation on the assumption that the limitation began to run from the date of the entrustment. Ramaswami Chettiar was then dead and his widow was impleaded as defendant and a decree was sought for against the assets of Ramaswami Chettiar in her hands. While the suit was pending, it was brought to the notice of the plaintiff that Ramaswami Chettiar had left a will executed on the 17th of September, 1936 in which two persons were appointed as executors of his estate. Thereupon an application was made by the plaintiff to implead these executors as defendants 2 and 3 and on the 6th July, 1938 they Were duly impleaded.2. Th...
Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Varu Vs. Perla Ann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad660; (1941)1MLJ527
Pandrang Row, J. 1. These three connected appeals arise out of certain acquisitions of land made for the Andhra University buildings at Waltair in the Vizagapatam District. Appeals 123 and 133 may be dealt with together as they raise the same question. That question is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to decide the amount of compensation due to the melvaramdar and give a decree for anything more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, in- the absence of any reference made to the lower Court by the Land Acquisition Officer at the instance of the melvaramdar. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded in one case about Rs. 64 and in the other case about Rs. 48 to the melvaramdar Perla Annapurnamma Garu, while the appellant before us, who is the Zamindar of Chemudu was awarded in one case Rs. 11,000 and odd and in the other case Rs. 8,800 and odd as the permanent ryot of the land. A sub-lessee appears to have been given nothing as compensation. There was a reference made ...
Kuppuswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad866; (1941)2MLJ255
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of two items of property which were sold by the plaintiff's step-mother in April, 1915 to the 1st defendant while the plaintiff was undergoing imprisonment in Andamans under a sentence of transportation for life. The plaintiff came back in 1926 and brought the present suit in 1934. The properties changed hands in the meantime--the 1st defendant having sold one item to the 2nd defendant on the 27th April, 1928 and the second item to the 3rd defendant on the 27th June, 1928. The present suit was brought in January, 1934. It was decreed in the first instance by the District Munsif of Ranipet. On appeal, however, the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore dismissed it on the ground of limitation.2. The question to decide in this appeal is whether the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on that question is right. After hearing learned Counsel for the plaintiff, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is ...
V.S. Sharma Vs. J. Dharma Rao, Proprietor, M.C. Appaswamy Chetty and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad124
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint discloses an offence under Sections 7 and 8, Copyright Act and its dismissal on the ground that the dispute is of a civil nature cannot be sustained. The order of dismissal is therefore set aside and there will be further inquiry into the complaint in accordance with law by the Chief Presidency Magistrate or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »