Chennai Court October 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.
The Madura Municipal Council Through Its Commissioner, Mr. Rajiah D. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad658; (1942)2MLJ269
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Madura Devasthanam against the Municipal Council, Madura, for a declaration that the building and lands described in the schedule annexed to the plaint were exempt from payment of the property tax to the defendant Municipality. The defendant Municipal Council justified the assessment in reply and contended that in so far as the items contained in the schedules were used for commercial purposes and could not be said to form a portion of the temple property, they could not be exempt from the payment of the tax. The learned Subordinate Judge of Madura held that the items covered by item 1 were not liable to be assessed but those described in items 2 and 3 were so liable. The Madura Municipal Council has preferred an Appeal (No. 293 of 1939) in regard to the items covered by item 1 and the Madura Devasthanam preferred the other appeal (No. 302 of 1939) in regard to the items described in items 2 and 3.2. The only question t...
Visalakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. the Coimbatore Janopakara Nidhi Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ44
Somayya, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether after the Indian Contract (Amendment) Act of 1930 which came into force on the 1st of July of that year, jewels entrusted for safe custody can be the subject of a valid pledge by the depositee. The lower appellate Court found that the respondent bank took the pledge bona fide and without any notice of the defect in the title of the pawnor and that the pledge is valid. The second appeal is filed by the owners of the jewels.2. The appellants contend that the pawnor is not entitled to create a valid pledge in respect of the jewels which were merely entrusted for safe custody. It is urged by the respondent that having regard to the amendment of the various sections, the prior decisions of this and the other High Courts that a pledge made under such circumstances is not valid do not apply to cases arising after the amendment. The relevant sections old and new are:NEW. OLD178 :-- 178 :--Where a mercantile agent is, with. A person wh...
In Re: C. Guruswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ457
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in connection with three speeches made by him, which have been marked as Exs. B, D and F; and he has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. From a perusal of the portions of the speeches marked, I have no doubt that the learned Magistrate was right in holding that they infringed the provisions of the Defence of India Act. They tend to bring the Government in some small measure into hatred or contempt. I do not think that there was any direct instigation to use criminal force against any public servants; but a great deal was said against the Police which would have the effect of rousing hatred against them.3. There is, however, nothing in these comparatively mild speeches which could influence the conduct or attitude of any section of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the effective prosecution of the war. I feel that where a speech is made in connection with a trade or industrial dispute ...
Chokkalinga Mudali Vs. Manickka Mudali Alias Singara Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad273; (1942)1MLJ11
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a mortgagee is entitled in law to a personal decree for the balance of the mortgage debt when the mortgagor has been adjudicated an insolvent and has obtained an unconditional order of discharge. The reported decisions disclose a divergence of opinion. The adjudication in this case was under, the Provincial Insolvency Act, but admittedly there is no distinction to be drawn between that Act and the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act in this connection.2. On the 4th November, 1910 the respondent mortgaged immovable property to the appellant, who on the 10th October, 1916 filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee to enforce his security. On the 8th January, 1917 he obtained a preliminary mortgage decree and on the 29th January, 1920 a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property. In the meantime, to be exact, on the 13th November, 1919, the respondent filed, a petition asking t...
T.K. Nallamuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. R.K. Thirumalai Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad258; (1942)1MLJ49
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The parties to this appeal are ryots cultivating lands in the neighbourhood of the Kadamba tank in the Tinnevelly District. The tank Which is a large one is fed from a river through a channel flowing into the tank at its northern' extremity. A bund running from North to South causes the water to spread during the monsoon season to a line beyond the boundaries of the lands cultivated by the appellants. It is, admitted that from time immemorial these lands have been submerged for several weeks in the year after the tank has filled as the result of the rains. The withdrawal of water from the tank for the purpose of the cultivation of the lands falling within the ayacut causes the water to recede gradually from the appellants' lands and when this has happened they are fit for cultivation. The appellants and their predecessors have accepted tenancies of these lands knowing that they would be completely submerged for part of the year. In 1898 the appellants'...
Rao Bahadur V. Ranganatham Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappa Mudali and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad334; (1942)1MLJ92
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs who are the present trustees of Sri Parthasarathiswami Temple, Triplicane, against a decree of the City Civil Court dismissing their suit to evict the respondents from certain lands belonging to the temple after terminating their tenancy. Various defences were raised by the respondents which were all decided against them by the lower Court except the plea of multifariousness which was upheld. It would appear that the learned Judge gave the appellants an opportunity to amend the plaint (if so advised) so as to Cure the defect in the frame of the suit) but as the appellants failed to do so, he dismissed the suit.2. The facts may be briefly stated. In 1882, the then trustees demised the suit land measuring 8 cawnies 9 grounds and 2160 square feet in four equal parcels to four brothers who were the ancestors of the respondents, under four separate muchilikas on the same terms. Each lease comprised 2 grounds and 90 square fe...
In Re: Chundru Pallayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Mad315
Burn, J.1. The appellant and one Venka Narayudu were tried together by the learned Sessions Judge of West Godavari for the murder of a woman named Reddi Venka-yamma late at night on 19th April 1941, or rather on the early morning of the 20th. The case against them was that accused 2 had been carrying on an intrigue with Reddi Venkayamma, who was a married woman, and that early in the morning of 20th April before day light he had decoyed her to the compound of the Local Fund School and there both the accused had killed her. The motive alleged was that of the woman's jewels (M.Os. Nos. 1 to 5) which are unusually valuable. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, but convicted accused 1 and sentenced him to death. Hence this appeal.2. There is no dispute about the fact that Venkayamma was murdered by strangulation and there is no dispute about the place or the time of the occurrence. There is no dispute also about the identity of jewels (M.Os. 1 to 5) which were the property of th...
In Re: T.V. Venkatarama Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad178; (1941)2MLJ854
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was desirous of moving this Court to transfer a case from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kollegal; and in compliance with the provisions of Section 526 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he intimated the fact to the Court. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereupon passed an order under Section 526 (8) adjourning the case to the' 3rd March, 1941, requiring the accused to execute a bond for Rs. 200, and fixing the 3rd of March, 1941, as the date within which the High Court should be moved for transfer. He further directed that the petitioner should pay Rs. 39-8-0 as the costs of the day to the prosecution; because the petitioner had from time to time procured unnecessary adjournments and had delayed the application for transfer. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Magistrate was competent to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay the costs of the day to the prosecution.2. Under Section 344 of the...
Tiruturaipundi Sri Bana Oushadeesvara Swami Temple Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ99
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in reversal of the decree of the District Munsif of Tirutu-laipundi decreeing the suit. The suit is in ejectment. The plaintiff who is the Sri Bana Oushadeesvarasiwami Temple seeks to recover possession of 24 cents of land comprised in R.S. Nos. 183/3 and 183/5 in Tiruturaipundi, Tanjore District. The said property and a plot north of it were found by both the lower Courts to belong to the temple before 1899. The 1st defendant who is the 1st respondent in the appeal is in possession. He claims title to the suit property under a purchase, dated 28th July, 1924 from one Rangaswami Mudaliar. The 2nd defendant is his nephew in whose name the property was purchased but it is admitted that the said purchase was for the benefit of the 1st defendant. It is also admitted that the suit plot and the plot north of it were given to the ancestors of one Raja...
In Re: E.S. Ganapatisubramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ445
Horwill, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Erode under Rule 121, read with Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules, and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The matter was taken in appeal to the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, who confirmed the conviction chiefly on the ground that the petitioner had pleaded guilty. He came to the conclusion that although the punishment was severe, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had given good reasons for the sentence and that under the circumstances he did not consider it to be excessive.2. The charge against the petitioner was that he organised meetings at which intending Satyagrahis made anti-war speeches, introduced them to the audiences, made appreciative references to their speeches at the close of the meetings, and thereby abetted the Satyagrahis in infringing the Defence of India Act.3. It is argued by Mr. Bhashyam that as the principal offender had determined to commit an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »