Chennai Court December 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.
Madura Mills Company, Limited Through Its Managers, A. and F. Harvey V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad578; (1942)2MLJ175
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura in a suit filed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 44(B) of the Madras Religious Endowments Act, 1926, for a declaration that two parcels of land situate in the Villages of Anuppanadi and Ponmeni were granted in respect of the Sikaram kaval service at the Sri Minakshi Sundareswaral temple, Madura, and that the lands were liable to resumption as the result of the failure of the grantees to perform the service, The appellants bought one of the parcels of land and the appeal is confined to the area which they purchased. It measures 5.9 acres.2. Sub-S. (1) of Section 44 (B) provides that a sale of the whole or a portion of an inam granted for the performance of a charity or service connected with a math or temple and made, confirmed or recognized by the British Government, shall be null and void. Sub-S. (2), states that the Collector may resume the whole or any part of...
In Re: Shanmuga Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad700; (1942)2MLJ240
King, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his wife Valliammal by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly and has been sentenced to death.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant recently married Valliammal as his second wife and that there were misunderstandings between them because he had not taken back property which he had delivered to his first wife in order to make over some of it to Valliammal. There is, however, no evidence of any actual quarrel preceding the offence Valliammal was killed on the afternoon of the 10th March, 1941. She was then out in a cholam field near a well. At the well P.W. 5 was baling water. In the field next to that of the deceased, according to the evidence given by her in the Committing Magistrate's Court, was a young girl P.W. 4. There is no direct evidence of the offence. Evidence is given by P.W. 5 which proves the presence of the, appellant near where the deceased's body was found and P.W. 4's evidence before the Committing M...
K. Lakshmappa and anr. Vs. Talasani Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad305; (1942)1MLJ113
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of applications presented to the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, exercising jurisdiction in insolvency for scaling down the debt due to the appellant in each case in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Belief Act. The appellant in CM.A. No. 606, held a promissory note executed by the insolvent debtor, the respondent in these appeals, and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 607, had obtained a decree against him. Both the creditors had proved their debts but the respondent objected to their payment in full by the Official Receiver on the ground that the debts should be scaled down under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Official Receiver overruled the objection and paid the full amount of the principal with interest at six per cent, per annum as provided in Section 48 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Thereupon the respondent filed I.A. Nos. 21 and 31 of 1939 in the Court below praying tha...
In Re: C.P. Jagannathachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad326; (1942)1MLJ105
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras of an offence punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. in that he gave false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment, till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50.2. The case against the petitioner which the Chief Presidency Magistrate found to have been proved was that the Judge ordered the return of half costs to him in a certain suit. In order to carry out that order, the Registrar called upon the petitioner to return the receipt given to him at the time when the court-fee was paid. The petitioner falsely replied that he had lost the receipt. In fact he had pledged the receipt with a Marwadi. The Registrar then told the petitioner that he could return the money to him only if he filed an affidavit that he had lost, the receipt ;* so that he might assure himself that the money was returned to the proper person. The petitioner thereupon fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›