Chennai Court October 1941 Judgments
In Re: V. Bhuvaraha Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ1014
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. On the 1st October, 1941 the petitioner delivered a speech at a meeting held in open air at Negapatam and in the course of it made statements which it is alleged constituted offences specified in the rules framed under the Defence of India Act. A police officer was present at the meeting and it is said that he made notes of the petitioner's statements. On the 16th October, the police filed in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Negapatam a first information report in which the statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner on this occasion were set out. Immediately after the report had been presented the petitioner was arrested and a charge sheet prepared in which it was alleged that the petitioner had committed offences under Rule 34(6)(e)(g)(k) and (p) read with Rule 38(1)(a). Rule 38(1)(a) states that no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, do any prejudicial act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 34 indicates what is meant by a 'prej...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandru Rao, Municipal Health Officer Vs. Chinnayya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ217
ORDERHorwill, J.1. One Chinnayya Goundan filed a complaint in the Court of the Second Glass Magistrate of Vaniambadi to the effect that the Municipal Health Officer came to him after the complainant had tied a cow to a tree, gave him a smack on the neck, and told him that he had no business to tie his cow there. He said to the Health Officer that if he had been told that he should not tie his cow there, he would not have done so. The Health-Officer thereupon lost his temper and gave him some further blows on the cheeks and on the head. The Health Officer raised a preliminary objection that the Magistrate could not entertain this complaint in the absence of the sanction of the Local Government. The Magistrate, in a considered order, held that the act of the Health Officer could not be said to be one that was done by the petitioner in the exercise of his official duty, and so dismissed the application.2. It is of course true that it was no part of the duty of the petitioner to strike the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Reddiar Alias Rajah Chidambara Reddiar Vs. Venugopala Red ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties' in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit;' and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. the Right Honourable the Secretary of State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ431
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Appeals Nos. 163 of 1938 and 37 of 1939.- These are two connected appeals. They arise out of two cross, suits one of which O.S. No. 26 of 1932 was brought on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council against one Krishna-swami Naidu and others and the other O.S. No. 57 of 1932 by Krishnaswami Naidu against the Secretary of State for India in Council to which some of the defendants in the first suit were-also impleaded and a decree either in the plaintiff's favour individually or jointly with the other defendants was asked for. The suit on behalf of the Secretary of State for India was instituted first and the whole of the evidence, documentary and oral, on which both the suits were decided was produced in this case, the judgment in the other suit merely recording the findings arrived at in O.S. No. 26 of 1932.2. O.S. No. 26 of 1932 was instituted on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the properties described in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ekkanathtavazhi Karnavan and manager Dakshayani Kunchi Amma's children ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ418
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises questions of some difficulty with reference to the interpretation of Section 14 of Act IV of 1938 and its application to families governed by Marumakkattayam law.2. The appellants were the defendants in a suit brought oil a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 5,664-10-0, executed by them and by two other members of their family who have since died, on 1st December, 1935. The debt is admittedly a family debt binding the tavazhi' of which the defendants are members. There is no particular difficulty about the way in which the debt is to be scaled down if it is to be scaled down. The suit note can be traced back to an earlier note, dated 2nd January, 1927, for a sum of Rs. 2,100 executed by a representative of the defendants' tavazhi to the plaintiffs' assignor. This note of 1927, is made up of four other notes regarding which the materials are not very complete. But one of those notes is a note for Rs. 700, dated 1st February, 1917 which itself can be trac...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppala Krishtappa Vs. Premaleelamani, Minor by Mother Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad705; (1943)1MLJ120
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This petition arises out of an application by the wife of the petitioner for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their child, which is in the custody of the mother.2. The husband and wife separated because they did not get on well together and because the petitioner contemplated taking another wife--which he eventually did. The elders of the village met together and effected a compromise, by which the wife was to get land worth Rs. 400 for her maintenance and 'a house to live in. The compromise refers to the petitioner's undertaking to bring the child up and protect it to get it married. I think this language would be more appropriate to the retention of the child by the father rather than by the mother; but whether this is what the panchayatdars decided is not quite clear. The learned Magistrate seemed to think this reference quite consistent with the child's staying with its mother. Some time after the settlement was effected, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramineedi Bayalamma and ors. Vs. Sree Muthangi Butchiramayya Garu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ250
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only two questions debated in this appeal relate to (a) interest claimed by the plaintiff, and (i) set-off claimed by defendants 2 to 5. They arise out of the following facts. Muthangi Butchiramiah the first defendant and Muthangi Narasiah, were real brothers. Narasiah died leaving him surviving a son Sitharamiah, the first plaintiff and four daughters. Sitharamiah died childless pendente lite and is now represented by his sisters plaintiffs 2 to 5.2. Sitharamiah was a minor at the time of his father's death and his uncle Butchiramiah acted as his guardian. Disputes seem to have arisen between them in regard to partition of property after Sitharamiah had come of age. Butchiramiah was, it appears, adamant, but his sons defendants 2 to 5 took a more reasonable attitude. They settled the matter amicably and entered into an agreement (Ex. A) on the 11th March, 1930, with Sitharamiah under which a partition of joint family properties, both movable and immovable, was a...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Ramnad Vs. Sivasuriya Narayanaswami thevar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad216; (1941)2MLJ1018
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dismissing E. P. No. 72 of 1937 as barred by limitation, and declining to revive a prior unregistered petition for execution returned on 15th January, 1935 for compliance with a direction of 29th November, 1934, and represented along with E. P. No. 72 of 1937 on 18th August, 1937 with a prayer to revive it if necessary.2. The decree sought to be executed is the final decree for sale on a mortgage passed on 21st October, 1932, and an application for execution was filed in 1933 (E. P. No. 19 of 1933). Notice was ordered and the petition was dismissed for non-payment of batta. The next petition is the unregistered petition, and it was filed on 23rd August, 1934. The application was made by the appellant the Official Receiver in whom the estate of the decree-holder had vested, and it was returned on 13th September, 1934 with the endorsement:Affidavits in support of the transfer of the decree and also the vesting o...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Ramier Vs. Minor Indiran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavanar Through His ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad315; (1942)1MLJ41
King, J.1. The question at issue in these appeal's is whether two items of property belonging admittedly to the Zamindar; of Talaivankottai can be proceeded against in execution of personal decrees obtained against the Zamindar's late father. These items of property are:1. a bungalow at Courtallam acquired by the then Zamindar in 1905, 2. the villages of Dharukapuram and Pattakurichi granted in inam to a remote ancestor of the Zamindar in 1207.The second appeal is concerned with the former item only. There the District Judge has held that this property is liable to attachment. In the first appeal the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly has held that both items are not so liable.2. The estate of Talaivankottai is one of those mentioned in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). If therefore these items of property are part of that estate, it would seem to follow that they cannot be taken in execution of a personal decree--such alienation being prohibited by Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sundara Rao Naidu Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad348; (1942)1MLJ70
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed by Somayya, J., which had the effect of setting aside the election of a councillor to the Corporation of Madras for the 26th Division of the City. We consider that the appeal is well founded. *2. In 1936, the second respondent was elected a councillor for this division. In the month of November, 1940, she was convicted under the Defence of India Act, 1939, and sentenced to imprisonment for one year.. The last meeting of the Council which she attended was held on the 20th November, 1940. Section 53 (I) (i) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919, states that subject to the. provisions of Section 54, a councillor or alderman shall cease to hold office if he fails to attend meetings of the Council for a period of three consecutive months beginning from the date of the commencement of his term of office or of the last meeting he attended as the case may be. The second respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »