Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Muthuswami Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad761
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the Village Munsif of Chetput and he collected Rs. 2-7-0 from P.W. 2 on 15th March 1937 and one rupee from P.W. 3 on 17th April 1937. The amounts were remitted to the treasury on 2lst May and 24th April 1937 respectively before any complaint was received and retention of the amount in the interval would not by itself justify the conviction under Section 409, Penal Code. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 409, Penal Code, is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Marti Satyanarayana Vs. Gujavarti Anjareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad719; (1941)1MLJ765
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this petition the Court is called upon to decide whether the word 'plaintiff' in Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be deemed to include the next friend of a minor plaintiff.2. Section 95 provides that where in a suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under Section 94, it appears to the Court that the application was made on insufficient grounds, or the suit fails and it appears that there was no reasonable or probable ground for its institution, the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may award against 'the plaintiff' reasonable compensation; not exceeding Rs. 1,000, for the expense or injury caused to him. An order determining an application of this nature bars a suit for compensation.3. In the present case the petitioner, as the next friend of a minor, filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam a suit against the respondent and at the same time filed an app...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad718; (1941)1MLJ695
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appeal and revision case arise out of Sessions Case No. 103 of 1940 in which two persons were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ramnad with a jury, the first accused for an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code and the second accused, under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found the 1st accused guilty under Section 392 Indian Penal Code and the second accused under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and accepting the verdict the Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced the first accused to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the second accused to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. The Crown appeals against the acquittal of the first accused of the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code and the revision case has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor for enhancement of sentence.2. The case is simple and as found by the jury P. W. 2 was robbed of her jewels on her way to Nattarsankottai along with her ...
Vanga Krishna Reddy Vs. Kosana Peda Satyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ91
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in a suit brought by the first and second respondents, in the Court of the Sub-Collector of Rajahmundry for the recovery of lands forming the emoluments of the office of village blacksmith in the village of Arikirevula which is in the East Godavari District. The plaintiffs-respondents obtained a decree for the possession of the lands and for the payment to them of an amount representing the mesne profits for the years 1931-1939 inclusive. The petitioner says that the Revenue Court had no power to grant to the plaintiffs-respondents a decree for mesne profits for more than the three years immediately preceding the suit, and he asks the Court in certiorari proceedings to quash that part of the decree which is in excess of the trial Court's jurisdiction.2. It has been found, and is now accepted to be the case, that the office of the village blacksmith devolved in accordance with custom on the plaintiffs-respondents, ...
Sree Raja Velugoti Navaneetha Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. Sirig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad56; (1941)2MLJ159
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application filed by the respondent in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector, Chandragiri, under Section 15 (4) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. In order to obtain the benefits of the Act, the respondent who is the proprietor of the Muddumudi village, an agraharam situated in the Kalahasti zamindari, paid into Court Rs. 21-12-2 being the jodi alleged to be due to the petitioner herein, who is the representative in interest of the zamindar, and prayed for a declaration that the 'rent' due for Fasli 1347 had been fully paid up. The petitioner pleaded that the jodi payable by the respondent was not 'rent' as defined by Section 3 (iv) of the Act and that therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This objection was overruled by the Court below and the only question for determination in this civil revision petition is whether the petitioner's contention is correct.2. The term 'rent' ...
In Re: Annika Lakshmudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad237
Mockett, J.1. The five appellants have been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of East Godavari for the murder on 26th September 1940 of Chinki Asahayudu. The deceased and the accused lived in the village of Siddavaripalem which is shown on the plan and all that it is necessary to note on the plan is that, as is in evidence, any one who wishes to visit the shandy which is used by the people of this village must pass through a forest and later through a village called Erakapuram to reach that shandy and consequently on returning from the shandy they will take the same way in the opposite direction. There is a history of the parties in this case which may be shortly noticed although it is of no very great importance. The deceased was the husband of P.W. 4 who had been married when she was young but had not joined her husband. Then P.W. 4 lived with P.W. 7 and married him but remained with him only for a year. She then left him and went to live with the decease...
N. Kunjithapatham Pillai Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad671; (1941)2MLJ66
Pandrang Row, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the petition in the Court below was barred by limitation. The article which is admittedly applicable is Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The question is whether the petition was presented within three years after the date of the final order in E. P. No. 139 of 1930. That E. P. was allowed by the District Court on the 3rd August, 1932, and an appeal preferred from it by the respondent Sivagamu Amma is said to have abated on the 23rd June, 1933, because Sivagamu Amma the appellant therein, died on the 23rd March, 1933, and no application to bring her legal representative on record was made within 90 days from that date. An application was made to set aside the abatement (C.M.P. No. 3812 of 1933) and that was dismissed on 17th November, 1933. There was however a formal order made on the 17th September, 1935, by a Bench of this Court to the following effect : 'Appellant dead. Appeal abates.' If this order of 17th Septe...
Pattu Achi Vs. V. Rajagopala Pillai (Plaintiff) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad699; (1941)2MLJ134
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of importance and also of difficulty relating to the Hindu law of adoption. Venkatachalam Pillai, the husband of the second respondent, died in 1890. No child had then been born to him, but two months after his death his widow was delivered of a still-born female child. Before his death Venkatachalam Pillai authorised his wife to make an adoption in case the child she was expecting should prove to be a female. Although Venkatachalam Pillai indicated a preference for a boy named Pichai Pillai should it become necessary to adopt a son to him it has been found as a fact that the power was of a general nature and conferred authority on the second respondent to make another adoption should the adopted boy die. On the 9th February, 1891, the second respondent adopted Pichai Pillai, who was murdered in the month of February, 1907. Pichai Pillai had attained majority, but was unmarried. On the death of Pichai Pillai the nearest ma...
Kandaswami Thambiran Vs. Vagheesam Pillai, Wrongfully Styling Himself ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad822; (1941)2MLJ463
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga to establish the title claimed by him to the office of Pandarasannadhi, or mahant, of the Tiruvannamalai math in the Ramnad District. In his plaint the appellant asked the Court to pass a decree in his favour for inter alia the following reliefs:(a) Declaring that the first defendant is not entitled to be the Pandarasannadhi of the Thiruvannamalai Athinam and (by way of consequential relief) ejecting him from the office of Pandarasannadhi of the Athinam and restoring its possession to the plaintiff as the only Thambiran of the Athinam qualified and entitled to its headship or at least to be in charge of the math and its properties till a new Pandarasannadhi comes.''(b) Restraining the first defendant by a perpetual injunction from in any way interfering with the spiritual or secular affairs of the Athinam.2. The respondent was the first defenda...
In Re: Sadasiva Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad69
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint of the petitioner was dismissed by the Sub-Magistrate under Section 203, Criminal P.C. and his apprehension cannot be said to be unreasonable. The case is therefore transferred to the file of the District Magistrate, Tanjore for disposal by him or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »