Chennai Court February 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.
M. Varadaraja Pillai and anr. Vs. Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad891(1); (1941)2MLJ359
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. We agree with Somayya, J., from whose decisions appeal has been preferred that the case is governed by the decision of this Court in Kotayya v. Venkata Punnayya : AIR1940Mad910 . That case was decided by a Division Bench and its decision is binding on us. The learned advocate for the appellant has suggested that the decision should be reconsidered and has asked us to refer the question to a Full Bench We see no reason why we should adopt this course.2. It has been suggested that there is a difference here because in the present case there has not been a final decree only a preliminary decree. The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that it is the preliminary decree in a mortgage suit which fixes the rights and liabilities of the parties. When a preliminary decree has been passed time is given to the mortgagor to pay off the decretal amount and redeem the mortgage. The final decree does not change the position except that it gives the mortgagee the ri...
Kottiath Vezhayil Devaki and ors. Vs. Aryakandi Kunhi Kannan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad678
Leach, C.J.1. The only question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is one of limitation. In 1913 a Malabar tar wad consisted of one Kannan, respondent 2 (Kannan's niece) and respondent 1 (the son of another niece). On 14th January of that year Kannan executed a deed of gift of certain immovable properties in favour of his own children who, of course, were members of another tarwad. According to the deed, the properties were the private properties of Kannan, but in addition to signing the document in his personal capacity he signed it as the karnavan of the tarwad and the guardian of respondent 1, who was then a minor. It is now beyond dispute that the properties belonged to the tarwad and that the gift constituted a fraud on the tarwad. Kannan died in 1919 and from that date respondent 2 has admittedly been the lawful karnavan of the tarwad. It would appear that respondent 2 managed the properties of the tarwad long before Kannan died, but for the purposes of this ap...
Boganathula Venkataswami Vs. Jangiti Pedda Madduleti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad786; (1941)2MLJ155
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application to quash an order passed by the Debt Conciliation Board, Nandyal. The Court has frequently had to set aside an order of a Debt Conciliation Board because it had been passed without jurisdiction or in abuse of the powers conferred by the Madras Debt Conciliation Act In some cases the action taken by the Board has been of a most arbitrary character and the order now complained of is of that nature.2. The first, second and third respondents applied to the Board for the settlement of a debt under the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. According to their petition they had only one creditor, the petitioner, whose debt was secured by a mortgage in respect of immoveable property. The Board issued notice to the petitioner, who was thereupon required by reason of the provisions of Section 10 (1) to submit a statement of the debt owing to him by the respondents. He appeared before the Board and filed the following statement:The mortga...
Paleru Papaiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Chebrolu Ramapunniah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad12; (1941)2MLJ566
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems to me quite clear that when, by the tripartite arrangement known as 'havala', a debt due by A to B is cancelled and for it is substituted a debt due by A to C, there being also a discharge of B's separate obligation to C, this cannot enable A to claim under Section 8 of Act IV of 1938, that his debt to C is a renewal of the debt to B. C is not the same creditor as B nor is he an assign of B in respect of A's original debt. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs--one set in C.R.P. No. 439 of 1939....
Javvadi Narasimhamurti Vs. the Maharajah of Pittapur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad690; (1941)2MLJ99
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, got a small cause decree against the second defendant and in discharge of that decree he got a mortgage from the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 23rd March, 1934. Besides the amount of Rs. 450 which went to discharge the small cause decree, there were two other debts of the second defendant which were purported to have been discharged out of the consideration for the mortgage. These two debts have been found to be fictitious. In a suit of 1931 the first defendant had got a decree for rent against the second defendant and on 8th May, 1934, in execution of that rent decree he attached the property covered by the mortgage in favour of the appellant. Presumably this property was not the property on which the rent decreed fell due, so that there was no question of a first charge for rent. The appellant filed a claim in the execut...
C.D. Parthasarathy Vs. the Madras Publishing House Ltd. Through Its Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad586; (1941)1MLJ577
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a question of priority in the distribution of the assets of the Madras Publishing House Ltd., which by an order of this Court went into compulsory liquidation on the 12th January, 1940. The assets of the company were mortgaged or charged to the third respondent under a registered deed dated the 31st August, 1937. By that deed all the immoveable properties, the machinery, plant, stock-in-trade, fixtures, fittings and other chattels were mortgaged to the third respondent and he was given a floating charge over the book debts of the company. The properties which were subject to the mortgage were described in separate paragraphs and there was a separate paragraph with reference to the floating charge over the book debts. The properties which were subject to the mortgage were by an order of the Court sold to the mortgagee for Rs. 1,89,000 which amount was set off against the mortgage-debt. At a later stage the book debts of the undertaki...
S. Kuppuswamy Chettiar Vs. Subbaraya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1941
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ611
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot directing that a complaint should be laid in the Court of the Magistrate having jurisdiction charging the petitioner with offences under Sections 199, 209, 210 and 420, Indian Penal Code. I think it is clear from the decision in Muniswami Mudaliar v. Rajaratnam Pillai : (1922)43MLJ375 , that in sanctioning a prosecution the Court should consider not only whether there is a prima facie case but also whether it is, in the words of Coutts Trotter, J., in the above case, 'against the public interest to allow criminal proceedings to be instituted' but which I respectfully suggest must also imply the consideration as to whether it is in the public interests they should be instituted. In this case the offence on which these complaints are based was committed between the 30th January, 1937, and 7th April, 1937. On the 9th April, 1937 the money said to have been obtained on 7th April, by means of the ...
Parambath Kanaran and ors. Vs. C.R. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad625; (1941)1MLJ828
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The respondent put in an application in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that he was lawfully married to the third petitioner here on the 22nd September, 1940, that the nuptials took place, and that on the following day, the 23rd day of September, 1940, the parents, the first and second petitioners Here, took away the third petitioner against her wishes to her home and detained her there with the intention of getting her married to somebody else.2. The Magistrate issued a notice under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce the girl. On the date to which the case had been adjourned an advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and represented that it would be a great hardship to bring the girl all the way from Tellicherry in North Malabar to Madras to answer to a petition that could not in any case be granted, because the girl was more than 16 years of age a...
In Re: Kshatri Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad675
Burn, J.1. On 15th March 1940 a man named Abraham who belonged to Rentachintala was murdered at Gurzala. His dead body was found on the roadside next morning and the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, Gurzala, (P.W. 1) who made the post mortem examination the same day expressed the opinion that the man had been killed partly by strangling him and partly by squeezing his testicles. There is no doubt about the fact or the manner in which Abraham was done to death and the case is certainly one of murder. In S.C. No. 42 of 1940 four men were put on their trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur for the murder of Abraham. The learned Sessions Judge agreeing with all the assessors found accused 1 alone guilty and sentenced him to death and acquitted the other three. C.A. No. 764 is the appeal of accused 1. C.A. No. 925 is an appeal preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the other three.2. The principal evidence on the side of t...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramanatham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad832
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Section 328, Penal Code. The respondent is stated to have caused arsenic to be mixed in the food of P. Ws. 4 and 5 through P.W. 3, a girl aged 13 years, with intent to injure them; and according to the prosecution, P.W. 3 was an innocent agent. The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the respondent on her evidence; and on appeal he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on the ground that P.W. 3 was an accomplice. Hence this appeal, and the view of the Sessions Judge that P.W. 3 was an accomplice cannot be supported. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Sessions Judge for disposal on the merits....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »