Chennai Court November 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.
K.R. Sankaralingam Pillai Vs. Veluchami Pillai, Minor by Adoptive Moth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad338; (1942)1MLJ119
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of some difficulty and importance in the Hindu law of adoption. The facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated. One K. Ramaswami Pillai had four sons namely, defendants 1 and 2,. K.R. Karuppanna Pillai the deceased husband of the 6th defendant and K. R. Ramaswami Pillai the deceased husband of the next friend of the minor plaintiff. They formed members of an undivided family. K. R. Ramaswami died in November, 1924 issue-less leaving his widow Chellathayi. Karuppanna died in 1924 leaving his widow Parvathi the 6th defendant. Ramaswami Pillai the father died in 1929. In the middle of 1936 defendants 1 and 2 effected a partition and divided the joint family properties between themselves. Subsequent to the partition Chellathayi adopted the plaintiff on 25th January, 1937. and the 6th defendant adopted the 3rd defendant on 31st January, 1937. This suit is by K. R. Ramaswami Pillai's adopted son the plaintiff by his adoptive mo...
Bobba Kutumbayya and ors. Vs. Ketavarapu Lakshminarasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Mad6; (1942)2MLJ221
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was charged before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Gannavaram under (Section 447, Indian Penal Code. At the third or fourth adjournment the complainant was absent; and so the Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant had sent a telegram asking the Magistrate to adjourn the case which reached the Magistrate five minutes after the order of acquittal was pronounced. The successor of the Magistrate who acquitted the accused thereupon permitted the complainant to file a fresh complaint and took cognizance of the case on the new complaint. The accused has filed this petition, contending that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the second complaint; for the accused had been acquitted and his second trial was barred by Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code.2. As the trial in a summons case commences with the issue of notice to the accused, it is clear that the accused was both tried and acquitted, ...
Reddi Mallayya Vs. Pedda Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad280; (1941)2MLJ1085
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner here, sued on a note executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff's undivided brother, the first defendant, on the 14th April, 1933, which was assigned to the plaintiff on the 2nd August, 1937. The trial Court found that the second defendant was an agriculturist and scaled down the debt on the basis of the suit note under Section 9 of Act IV of 1938. It was in evidence that the suit note of 1933 actually discharged an earlier note of about the year 1931 executed in favour of the plaintiff himself at a time when the family was undivided, the partition being in 1932. On these facts, the learned District Judge in appeal found that the creditor had not fulfilled his duty of putting before the Court the materials necessary for scaling down the debt because of the non-production of the prior document of 1931 and in the absence of proof of the documents necessary in order to ascertain the original principal, no decree could b...
Madavarvilagam Sri Vaithinathaswami Devasthanam, Srivilluputhur, Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad747; (1942)2MLJ414
Somayya, J.1. The landholder, who was the defendant in the trial Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. When he attempted to bring the ryot's holding to sale under the provisions of Section 111 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the ryot brought the suit for a declaration that the amount which is sought to be recovered for the non-payment of which the sale was attempted, is not legally due from him. What we are now concerned with is the claim made by the landholder in regard to the second crop raised on his holding by the plaintiff-the ryot. The allegation of the landholder was that the water with which the second crop was raised was the water of the tank belonging to himself. He also alleged that even if the second crop was raised with water from wells dug by the ryots themselves, he is nevertheless entitled to charge for the second crop. The lower Court held that during the fasli in question the ryot did not use the landholder's water and that the second crop was raised with the...
Kalitheerta Pillai Vs. Chellathammal Alias Ammamuthammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ28
Somayya, J.1. This case raises a very important question whether the widow of a deceased member of a Hindu joint family can make a valid adoption to her husband with the consent of the divided sapindas when there is only one coparcener alive who by reason of mental infirmity is not in a position to give or withhold his consent. Plaintiff had a brother Sethuramalingam Pillai who died on 6th January, 1926 leaving two widows, defendants 1 and 2 and a daughter the third defendant. At that time the father of the plaintiff and Sethuramalingam Pillai was alive and he died in July, 1926 leaving a widow the sixth defendant in the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 adopted the fourth defendant with the consent of certain divided sapindas of their husband on the 11th December, 1930. At that time, it is common ground that the plaintiff was suffering from some mental infirmity. Paragraph 8 of the plaint states that from the beginning of the year, 1926, the plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind and parag...
In Re: Muthusami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad420; (1942)1MLJ498
Horwill, J.1. The appellants and three others were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149, and Section 324, Indian Penal Code. He found accused 1, 2 and 5 guilty under Section 48 and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment each. He found accused 6 and 8 guilty under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced : them to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. He found accused 1, 2 and 5 guilty under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. He also found accused 6 and 8 guilty under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. The prosecution story is that the deceased and P.W. 2 were returning to their village after they had been to Pollachi Shandy to buy a buffalo. They reached a certain rock at ab...
In Re: K.M. Varadarajulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad494; (1942)1MLJ458
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. This petition was admitted because the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate did not set out the nature of the offence committed. The speech was not analysed, and it was not apparent on the face of the judgment how the Defence of India Act had been contravened by the accused.2. I have now been able to read through the whole of the speech and in particular those passages which were marked in the lower Court as being particularly objectionable. I have been reminded by the learned advocate for the petitioner of a remark of mine in another case that it was ordinarily unfair to apply the Defence of India Act to a speech made for the purposes of promoting the welfare of the workers in a trade and industrial dispute; but the speech with which we are concerned here was one to which this Act could be properly applied; for it was a wild speech which tended to endanger the public safety and hinder the defence of British India during this time of grave emergency. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›