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.
Vasudevan Nambudiri Vs. Unnimaya Anterjanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad298; (1942)1MLJ88
1. The petitioner was the 2nd defendant in a small cause suit filed on a promissory note, dated the 25th April, 1936, executed by the 2nd defendant himself and by his father the 1st defendant. This promissory note can be traced back to four earlier notes all executed by the 1st defendant alone for himself and for the family of which he was the manager. The parties are Nambudiri Brahmins, The lower Court has under Madras Act IV of 1938, scaled down the debt under Section 8 as against the 1st defendant and the joint family assets. Against the 2nd defendant personally the Court has given a decree based on the' suit promissory note with interest reduced under the provisions of Section 9. The 2nd defendant contends that on the basis of the previous decisions of this Court, he having been bound as a member of the joint family by the earlier notes is entitled under the explanation to Section 8 to trace back his liability to the original principal advanced in 1924 and to scale down the debt un...
P.K.L.S. Nachiyappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Marappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ329
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal, to which the civil revision petition is filed as an alternative, arises out of an amended decree passed on an application under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938. The suit was filed on a security bond executed by the first defendant for Rs. 5,000. The debt covered by the bond had its origin in two earlier promissory notes, a matter of some importance, since the bond itself is, dated 21st December, 1932, i.e., after the date specified in Section 8 of Act IV of 1938. The sixth defendant in 1935 purchased the lands covered by the bond, undertaking to pay a sum of Rs. 8,500 towards the bond, but he paid nothing. The decree was passed in 1936, and after the Act came into force the sixth defendant filed an application to scale down the decree.2. The only contentions which seem to have been pressed in the lower Court related to the question whether the Act was ultra vires and whether the decree against the sixth defendant was one which could not be scaled down with ref...
R. Kailasa Aiyar Vs. Payyalur Gramam Vanchi Pattar's son, Sundaram Pat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad205; (1941)2MLJ986
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether a co-mortgagee when suing to recover his individual share in the mortgage must value his suit according to the full amount due under the deed, or whether he may value it according to his own share. The question has arisen in other cases in this Court and there is a conflict of opinion. It is certainly one of some difficulty. In the present case there is a charge on immoveable properties and not a mortgage, but the same principle admittedly will apply.2. In the year 1919 one Vanchi Pattar organised a chit fund, of which he constituted himself the manager. The subscriptions were to be paid to him and as security for the discharge of his obligation to the subscribers he created a charge on certain immoveable properties. Rama Pattar, the father of the petitioner and of the fourth and fifth respondents, subscribed to the fund on behalf of his family, which was then joint. Eventually the family became...
P.V.R.R.V.R. Veerappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. V. Ar. V. Vr. Sivagami Ach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad291; (1941)2MLJ1064
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal, which was later converted into a civil revision petition, arises out of an application filed under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for scaling down a debt due by the petitioner in respect whereof a decree was passed on 18th September, 1935, by the Sub-Court of Devakottai and confirmed by the High Court on 28th February, 1939. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that though the petitioners are agriculturists within the meaning of the Act, 'they are not entitled to the benefits thereunder because they have been assessed to property or house tax within two years immediately preceding 1st October, 1937, within the meaning of Section 3, Clause (c) of the Act. This view is challenged by the petitioners as unsound. But the learned Counsel for the respondent-decree-holder submits that the dismissal of the application could be sustained on the ground that the application under Section ...
In Re: Valavala Pattabhiramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad668; (1942)2MLJ278
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narsapur found the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 325, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100 with a further three months' imprisonment in default. That conviction and the sentence were confirmed in appeal.2. It was alleged in the grounds of appeal that when the Sub-Magistrate pronounced judgment he said that the accused had been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 and to a term of three months simple imprisonment in default and that on the following day he re-called the accused and told him that he had been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment also. In view of the nature of this allegation, the appellate Magistrate summoned the Sub-Magistrate and recorded evidence from him as to the circumstances under which the judgment was delivered. I agree with the learned advocate for the petitioner that this evidence cannot be regarded as evidence cont...
K. Stanumurthiayya and ors. Vs. K. Ramappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad277; (1942)1MLJ21
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal lies in a narrow compass. One K. Narayanayya was the last male owner of the property involved in the suit out of which this appeal arises. He died leaving him surviving his widow Nagamma and a daughter Lakshmi. Nagamma was murdered on 27--9--1928 by her daughter Lakshmi and her son-in-law. Defendants 1 to 5 are the sons of Lakshmi and defendants 6 to 13 are the lessees under Nagamma in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs are the sons of K. Ramakrishnayya, the deceased divided brother of K. Narayanayya. The question in controversy is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the suit property in preference to defendants 1 to 5. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the defendants are the sons of the murderess Lakshmi, they are disentitled to succeed to the suit property and that they as next heirs are entitled to it. The learned District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the lear...
S. Berumull Sowcar Vs. P. Velu Gramany
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad369; (1942)1MLJ372
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant in the City Civil Court to enforce an equitable mortgage,2. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The decree of the Court below was passed on the 28th August, 1940, and the application for certified copies of the decree and judgment was made on the 29th August. The requisite copy stamps were called for on, the 26th September, but as they were hot deposited in time, the application was rejected on the 30th of the same month. A fresh application for copies was made on the 2nd October. A petition to restore the original application was also filed on the 3rd October. The Court below after hearing the objections of the respondent passed an order on the llth October, that copies be granted on the original application with a note thereon that they were granted in pursuance of the petition to restore the original application which had b...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kola Sahib of Wandiwash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ602
Horwill, J. 1. The petitioner was found by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Wandiwash to have sent a false report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, against the Circle Inspector of Wandiwash Circle and he was convicted under Section 47 of the Police Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. The matter was taken in appeal to the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Cheyyar, who allowed the appeal on the technical ground that the complaint was barred by time under Section 53 of the Police Act.2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate clearly made a mistake-in presuming that any period of limitation had been laid down for the bringing of complaints of the nature with which we are concerned in this case. Section 53, says,All actions and prosecutions against any person which may be lawfully brought for anything done or intended to be done either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of any other law for the time being in force conferring powers on the...
In Re: Thimmakka and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ583
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were convicted under S.,186, Indian Penal Code by the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Hindupur and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 each. The convictions and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the Joint Magistrate of Penu-konda.2. P.W. 1 is a sales officer of the Hindupur Credit Co-operative Societies and in execution of a decree went to a certain house in the village of Mothukapalli with the intention of entering it to . seize some movables in the house which is said to belong to the second accused, against whom the decree was being executed. The first accused, the wife of the second accused, just when P.W. 1 was about to enter the house, slammed the door in his face and prevented him from entering the house to do his duty.3. The first objection raised by the petitioners was that the offence was really one under Section 52 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, which is triable only by a First Class Magistrate. The Hindupur Second Class Magistra...
In Re: S.S. Pattabirama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ248
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was charged in the Court of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam with failure to submit a return under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and with fraudulently evading payment of tax, offences which were said to fall within Section 15 (a) and (d) of the Act respectively. The Magistrate held that the charge under Section 15 (a) had been proved and fined the petitioner one anna, ordering him in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one day. At the time the charge was laid the petitioner admittedly was not required by the Act to make any return. During the course of the hearing the Provincial Government made an amendment to Rule 11 which, if made on the 1st April, 1940, would have meant that the petitioner would have been liable to make a return. It is manifest that by an amendment of the rules in one year an act or omission in the previous year cannot be made an offence and the learned Advocate-Gener...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »