Chennai Court July 1941 Judgments
Rentala Narasimha Rao Vs. Rentala Venkataramana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad857; (1941)2MLJ439
Somayya, J.1. The respondent, a minor, filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the order appointing the appellant as the Karnam of the village of Kapa-varam is illegal and ultra vires, to register him as the Karnam and to appoint a deputy for him.2. The plaintiff's case is that his grandfather Rentala Achyutharamayya who was the holder of the office in question died in 1928 leaving two sons, the first and second defendants, that the plaintiff's father the second defendant who was the elder of the two sons was then holding the Karnam's office of another village, that the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the first defendant the younger son ignoring the senior line of the plaintiff and that the first defendant's appointment is contrary to the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act.3. The first defendant contended that the plaint should have been filed in the Revenue Courts under Section 13 (1) of the Act and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Narikkal Chathan of Muthuvannacha Amsom and Desom Vs. Veethiyottillath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad242; (1941)2MLJ455
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This second appeal has been placed before a Bench because there are conflicting decisions of Judges sitting alone with regard to the interpretation of Section 20, Clause (5) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. Section 20 opens with these words:No suit for eviction of a customary verumpattamdar, kuzhikanamdar or kanamdar shall lie at the instance of his landlord except on the following grounds.2. There are six clauses in which the grounds are set out and' Clause (5) is in these terms:That the period of the verumpattam, kanam or kuzhikanam, as the case may be, has expired and there has been no renewal and the landlord requires the holding bona fide for his own cultivation or for that of any member of his family or tarwad or tavazhi who has a proprietary and beneficial interest therein.3. The question which falls for decision is whether the words 'requires the holding bona fide' mean that the jenmi may, in? the circumstances stated at the beginning of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Ramanathan Chettiar by Next Friend Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Muth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad161; (1941)2MLJ816
Mockett, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 32 of 1935. In that suit the plaintiff (the present appellant) prayed for a decree declaring in'substance that his (plaintiff's) half share in a house was not liable to be attached in execution of a decree passed in O.S. No. 33 of 1932 in the East Tanjore District Court. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the first defendant from executing the said decree against his half share. O.S. No. 33 of 1932 was a suit by one Muthuraman Naidu against R.M.M.S.T. Vairavan Chettiar for money due on a promissory note. Vairavan Chettiar is the natural father of the appellant (the plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of 1935). The promissory note was executed on the 6th October, 1929 by Vairavan Chettiar to Thambuswami Naidu and this note was endorsed by the payee to Muthuraman Naidu, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 33 of 1932. The promissory note is marked Ex. VI. The judgment in O.S. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Valliappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Muthu Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ943
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for possession of the properties claiming title from the ninth defendant who in turn purchased them in Court auction in execution of a money decree against the first defendant herein in S.C.S. No. 1668 of 1915 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem. The lands in question were then situated within the jurisdiction of the Namakkal District Munsif's Court and the decree was transferred to that Court for execution. The properties were brought to sale by that Court and were purchased by the ninth defendant. The ninth defendant subsequently conveyed the property to the plaintiffs and the suit is based upon the purchase by the ninth defendant in Court auction as the root of their title. This purchase was attacked by defendants 5 to 8 on the ground that the ninth defendant, who was the Court auction purchaser, was the benamidar for the plaintiffs decree-holders. Under Order 21, Rule 72, Civil Procedure Code, a decree-holder cannot purchase the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Jaggopal Prasad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad889(2); (1941)2MLJ397
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The first respondent has been found guilty of running a gaming house and the other respondents of gaming within the house.2. The only question that arises in this petition is whether the money found in the pockets of the three respondents should be confiscated. Under Section 47 of the City Police Act the Magistrate may order all or any of the articles seized or the proceeds thereof to be forfeited. Various articles were found about the premises, and the police also seized the money that was in the pockets of the three respondents. The Magistrate has declined to forfeit the money that was on their person, and the question that arises in this revision petition--which has been filed by the Crown--is whether the Magistrate's order was a right one.3. There can be no doubt that the general principle to be adopted by a Magistrate in considering a question of this kind is whether the money is likely to have been used in connection with the gaming. If so, he should order its ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramania Aiyar Vs. the India Equitable Insurance Company Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad105; (1941)2MLJ509
Wadsworth, J.1. The contention raised in this petition under Madras Act IV of 1938 is one which, so far as I am aware, is not covered by authority, but it seems to me to be clearly untenable. The petitioner was employed by the India Equitable Insurance Company, Limited, and he borrowed from his employers in 1927 a sum of Rs. 250 on a promissory note carrying interest at 12 per cent. per annum. In 1930 that debt was renewed by the execution of a fresh promissory note for Rs. 340 with interest at the same rate. In 1933 there was a further renewal by the execution of a note for Rs. 450 carrying interest at only 9 per cent. On this note the company sued and got a decree on 23rd October, 1936. The debtor applied to scale down this decree under Section 19 of the Act and has been met 'by the objection that under Section 10 (2) (in) of the Act, nothing in Sections 8 and 9 applies to a liability in respect of a sum due to a public company when the interest payable in respect of the liability is...
Tag this Judgment!Maddipatla Narayanaswami and ors. Vs. Edala Narayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad240; (1941)2MLJ1049
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Three Bench Magistrates sat to consider C.C. No. 1931 of 1940 on the file of the First Class Bench Court of Rajahmundry. At a later hearing of the case a fourth Magistrate joined. At the final hearing there were only three Magistrates present, of whom two had sat throughout. So it is clear that the Magistrate who did not sit at the first hearing had no legal power to participate in the disposal of the case. As three Magistrates constitute a quorum and only two Magistrates sat throughout, they could not have passed a legal order. On the date of the final disposal of this case the complainant was absent and so the case was dismissed under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. Later, the Magistrates realised that they had passed an illegal order and so proceeded to rectify it by hearing the case once again. The trial is proceeding. The accused has therefore filed the present petition for revision.2. A Bench Court has no power to correct errors in its judgments or to rev...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sudalamadakudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ48
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Srivaikuntam found the accused before him guilty of an offence under S.. 324, Indian Penal Code; but as he thought that an order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code had to be passed against the accused and he had no power to do so himself, he acted under Section 349 (1), Criminal Procedure Code; and he submitted his proceedings and forward ed the accused to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to whom he was immediately subordinate. The Joint Magistrate, instead of acting under Section 349 (2), Criminal Procedure Code and disposing of the matter himself, considered the proposal of the Sub-Magistrate that proceedings should be taken under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that it was not necessary. He there- upon sent the case back to the Sub-Magistrate for disposal. That he had no power to do. Section 349 (2) says:The Magistrate to whom the proceedings ale submitted may, if he thinks fit examine the parti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheik Mahaboob
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad532
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The joint Magistrate of Ongole tried four accused for the offence of 'theft in a building.' They were all youths; and after admonishing them he released them under Section 562, Criminal P.C. Section 562 can be applied only to first offenders; and so accused 4, who had already spent two periods in a Borstal School, could not be treated under this section. The Sessions Judge has therefore referred the case to this Court for orders. The only evidence against the accused persons was a confession which is said to have been made by them and which led to the discovery of the stolen article. All the four accused could not, of course, have been questioned together, nor is it to be believed that they simultaneously made a confession of their guilt. If the police officer and the other panchayatdars had discovered the whereabouts of the stolen article from the statement of one accused, then the statements of the other accused would not be admissible because they did not lead to ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Goundan and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad867; (1941)2MLJ537
King, J.1. The subject matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by the first defendant in a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tindivanam numbered as O.S. 193 of 1936. The plaintiffs are the nephews of one Shanmugha Goundan in whose favour the promissory note had been assigned. Shanmugha Goundan is now dead and the plaintiffs have filed this suit as members of the joint family to which Shanmugha Goundan had belonged and who therefore continue to own the joint family property. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif in somewhat unusual circumstances. It was originally filed as a small cause suit in Tindivanam, its valuation being below Rs. 300 and the Judge who was then in charge of the Court having extended small cause powers. This Judge was succeeded by another Judge who was not so empowered and so the suit was transferred to the Original Side. A third District Munsif then presided over the Court and he was empowered to try all suits up to the valuati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »