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.
Eletath Alias Muthetath Mallisseri Narayanan Nambudiri and ors. Vs. Et ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad307; (1942)1MLJ166
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The main question to decide in the appeal relates to the plaintiff's claim for setting off the arrears of the rent due to him by the defendants against the value of improvements found to be payable by the former to the latter. A decree was secured by the plaintiff Dewaswom in regard to the arrears of rent but it has become barred by limitation.2. The properties in suit including certain other items of property, sixty-three in all, belong to the plaintiff Dewaswom. They were demised by it on a kanom of Rs. 116 to defendants 1 to 55, who were members of a tarwad, for a period of five years so far as paddy lands were concerned and for a period of twelve years in respect of parambas. It appears that a Kuzhikanom deed was executed by the plaintiff Dewaswom on the 26th February, 1917 in favour of one V. Krishnan Nair who was then Karnavan of the defendants' tarwad. Since he died without executing a corresponding marupat, the marupat on the basis of which the present suit w...
In Re: D.K. Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad181; (1941)2MLJ852
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was alleged to have committed contempt of Court; and the Sub-Magistrate who was presiding over that Court took summary action under Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 15. He preferred an appeal under Section 486 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the first instance, he preferred it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On an objection taken by the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The petitioner then approached the District Magistrate, who held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had power. When the matter came back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector again raised the objection, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate felt that his hands had been tied by the District Magistrate and so overruled the objection. The Prosecuting Sub-Inspector then went again to the District Magistrate, who passed an order which ...
K.K.A. Ponnuchami Goundar Vs. Muthusami Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad252; (1941)2MLJ968
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act states that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in a Court by or on behalf of a firm against a third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. The question which arises in this petition is whether the registration of a firm after it has filed a suit can cure the defect.2. In this case an unregistered partnership instituted a Small Cause suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palni. It had applied for registration before filing the plaint, but the application had not been granted. In fact it was not granted until over a month had elapsed after the filing of the plaint. In these circumstances the District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs. The reported cases disclose a difference of opinion, but the majority of the judgments are to the effect that subsequent registration of the firm does ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Krishnaswami for Sundaram Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad196; (1941)2MLJ1040
Horwill, J.1. The accused's licence for driving a car expired on the 10th December, 1940. On the 12th December, 1940, an unfortunate accident occurred in which the accused ran over and killed a child. He at once applied for a renewal of his licence, which was granted. He was subsequently prosecuted for driving without a licence and was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, Madura Town, because on the date on which the accident occurred he had no effective licence. The matter was taken in appeal to the First Class Magistrate of Madura, who set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that the subsequent renewal dated back to the 10th December, 1940, and that the accused must therefore be deemed to have had an effective licence on the 12th December, 1940.2. As the licence of the accused expired on the 10th December, 1940, and he had no licence on the 12th December, 1940, he contravened the provisions of Section 3 (1) of Act IV of 1939, which says that no person shall drive...
T.K. Embaru Vs. Vedavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad595; (1942)2MLJ148
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of this appeal which is one against an order of the Master granting to the decree-holder leave to bid at the auction sale of the mortgaged property directed by the decree. On the date of the order there was a sum of over Rs. 16,000 due to the respondent who is the decree-holder. The order of the Master permitted him to bid for the property for the market value which is stated in the proclamation to be Rs. 13,000 an amount much less than the amount due to the decree-holder under the decree.2. The right of appeal from an order or decision of the Master is granted or recognised in Order XIII, Rule 19 of the Original Side Rules. It says:Any person affected by any order or decision of the Master or the First Assistant Registrar, Original Side, in respect of all matters judicially dealt with in the exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Honourable the Chief Justice from time to time under Order 40, Ru...
In Re: Peri Rameswara Sarma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ202
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were found in a common gaming house and all of them, with the exception of the 14th--and possibly of the 28th--accused, were found gaming. At the time of the search all the money found on their persons was seized by the Police; and the Magistrate ordered the confiscation of all that money. That order was upheld on appeal. These petitions were admitted on the question as to how far the Magistrate was justified in ordering the confiscation of the money found on the persons of the petitioners.2. Section 5 of the Madras Gaming Act authorises the police officer making the searchto seize all instruments of gaining and all monies and securities for money and articles of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming which are found therein . . . Under Section 10 of the same Act, the trial Magistrate may order all or any of the articles seized or the proceeds of the same to be forfeited. It is thus seen from thes...
Kudithipudi Venkatramayya Vs. Mallacheruvu Pundareekakshudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad523; (1942)1MLJ491
Wadsworth, J.1. These three cases have relation to the same transaction and they are to some extent interdependent. We are concerned with a promissory note debt incurred on 4th December, 1930, by the first defendant, in the suit out of which A.S. No. 131 of 1940, arises, in favour of the first plaintiff. This debt was a renewal of two earlier debts incurred by the father of the first defendant. The suit note was assigned by the first plaintiff to the second plaintiff for collection and re-assigned to the first plaintiff in November, 1939. Meanwhile, the first defendant had become an insolvent, his insolvency petition being filed on 6th July, 1932, and the adjudication being four months later. The insolvency was not prosecuted and on 1st November, 1938, the Insolvency Court passed an order annulling the adjudication owing to the default of the insolvent and directing that under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the properties should vest in the Official Receiver. After this o...
Rangaswami Pillai Alias Rama Pillai and ors. Vs. Vasu Ammal Alias Srin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad388; (1942)1MLJ289
Wadsworth, J. 1. This case raises a question relating to the admissibility of a plea of benami in a matter arising under Section 4 (h) of Act IV of 1938. The petitioners here were the judgment-debtors who filed an application under Section 23 of the Act to which the respondent, the decree-holder, pleaded that she came within the exemption of Section 4 (h). As against this plea, it was urged that she was entitled to a mortgage debt evidenced by Ex. A, a bond of the year 1920 for a sum of Rs. 4,500. She met this contention by adducing evidence that she was not the owner of the mortgage bond but a benamidar for her adopted son.2. This evidence has been accepted by the Court below and the only, question arising in revision is whether the lower Court was entitled to go into such a contention. We have no doubt held in cases falling under the explanation to Section 8, that it is not open to the Court to entertain evidence that some one other than the creditor in the document is, in fact, the ...
Pariyanampatta Davaswom Uralan Kannanoorpata Moopil Nair (Deceased) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad441; (1942)1MLJ495
Wadsworth, J.1. These civil revision petitions all arise out of applications under S, 15 (4) of Madras Act IV of 1938, made by the receiver appointed in a suit for the partition of a Malabar tarwad. The partition suit was filed in 1934 and it resulted in a preliminary decree, dated 30th March, 1935. The Court appointed a receiver to hold the properties during the process of partition and when the Act came into force the position was that the properties had not yet been divided by metes and bounds and that the 84 sharers were, with reference to the leasehold interest with which we are concerned, tenants in common together liable to pay rent to the landholder. The receiver's petition asserts that all the sharers are agriculturists and there is no denial of this assertion in the counter-affidavit, nor is there any plea that any one of the sharers is disqualified under one or other of the provisos to Section 3 of the Act. We may take it that the receiver was in charge of the leasehold inte...
Syed Dewan Khaja Moideen Saheb Vs. D.M. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ962
Horwill, J.1. This petition has been filed against the finding of the District Munsif of Udumalpet in O.S. No. 46 of 1940 that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The suit was one for the administration of the estate of one Kairunnissa Bibi, for accounts and for division of the assets amongst the heirs under the Muhammadan Law. The short point that arises in this petition is whether the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-Fees Act or Article 17-B of Sch.II apply. At first sight, there is a very formidable array of authority in support of the contention of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for the respondent that an administration suit should be treated as a suit for accounts and that, therefore, Section 7 (iv) (f) is applicable. He has cited Khatija v. Shekh Adam Husenally I.L.R.(1915) 39 Bom. 545 Shashi Bhushan Bose v. Manindra Chandra Nandy I.L.R.(1916) Cal. 890 Saraju Bala Dasi v. Jogemaya Dasi I.L.R.(1917) Cal. 634 Shivaprasad Singh v. Prayagkumari Debee I.L.R.(1933) Cal. 711 San ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »