Chennai Court July 1941 Judgments
In Re: A.S. Sehu Mohammed Maraikayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad834(2); (1941)2MLJ356
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Tiruchendur of an offence punishable under Section 229 of the Local Boards Act for having uttered offensive abuse on the occasion of a demand for tax being presented to him by the complainant, a bill collector of the Panchayat Board of Kayalpatnam. He was fined Rs. 15 and the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal to the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Tinnevelly.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that even though it was true that the petitioner uttered the abusive language complained of, it would not be an offence punishable under Section 229 of the Local Boards Act. Section 229 runs thus:No person shall obstruct or molest, a local board....or any person employed by the local board,....in the performance of their duty or anything which they are empowered or required to do by virtue, or in consequence, of this Act or of any by-law, rule, regulation or order made under it...
Tag this Judgment!Potluri Rangayya Vs. Vallabhaneni Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad815
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The lower appellate Court was not inclined to agree with the decision of the trial Court, but nonetheless, affirmed its judgment on a plea of res judicata which was taken before it for the first time. Ordinarily this is not permissible. But when the final finding on which the plea rests was given while the appeal was pending it was not only justified but, in my view, J bound to take notice of the final judgment arrived at between the parties and give effect to the same. It was very strongly 'urged on behalf of the appellant that the ploa of res judicata should be, since it was not taken for a great length of time while the suit was pending in the first Court, taken to have been waived. It is true that the petition under Section 4, (I.A. No. 526 of 1934) was decided on 17th August 1935 and the suit was. dismissed on 7th April 1936 but it must be remembered that an appeal had boon filed on behalf of the appellant from the decision of his petition in I.A. No. 526 of 193...
Tag this Judgment!C. Krishnamachariar Vs. B. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad76; (1941)2MLJ507
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain site which was granted to the defendant by the Government on patta on certain conditions. The defendant failed to comply with those conditions and the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the assignment in accordance with the terms of the patta and the Tahsildar assigned the site on the 30th August, 1931 to the present plaintiff. The only contention raised before me is that the suit for possession by the present plaintiff was not competent and that it was incumbent upon the Government to proceed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act and thus give him a right of appeal to the revenue authorities and failing that, to bring a civil suit within six months. Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act gives a summary remedy to the Collector but does not take away the right of the Government to proceed in a civil Court or the right of the assignee of the Government to obtain an assignment of the land after the l...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima Bibi Vs. Shaik Peda Pentu Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad944; (1941)2MLJ548
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur in O.P. No. 110 of 1938. The appellant was the petitioner before the District Court. She said that she was the maternal grandmother of three minor Mahomedan girls. She said that the youngest child was in her custody and that the two elder ones were in the custody of their father the respondent in the petition and the respondent in this appeal. The application was for the appointment of a proper and fit person as guardian of the property of the minors and for delivery of the two elder children to the custody of the petitioner. It was also prayed that the rate of maintenance for the minors may be fixed. The learned District Judge dismissed the petition holding that under Section 19 (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act he had no power to appoint a guardian of the persons of any of these minor children because their father had not been shown to be unfit to be their guardian. The amount of property left by the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Boya Chinna Papanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad49; (1941)2MLJ1070
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to death for the murder of Papanna on the night of 6th November, 1940. As the learned Sessions Judge observes, the case against the appellant depends substantially on his own confessional statement, corroborated by the recovery of incriminating articles as a result of that statement. The main question is whether this statement was rightly admitted and made the basis of his conviction, having regard to the provisions of Sections 24 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. Papanna was murdered when he was asleep at night and no one saw it being done. The complaint mentioned seven suspects, including the appellant and his co-accused, but this was evidently mere guess-work. The Sub-Inspector arrived on the 7th and on the 8th he secured the evidence of P.W. 7 that on the night of the murder as he was coming home from the fields he had seen the two accused sitting on the sluice of the tank (some distance from the place of the murder) and had spoke...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyavu thevar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ485
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The learned District Judge has in a careful and fairly elaborate judgment, after discussing the whole of the evidence which was on the record, recorded his finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the land sued for. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant I find that the only two points which deserve any notice are:(1) that although there is a reference in Ex. A. to 7 1/2 kulis of land in paimash No. 16, the learned District Judge has failed to note that fact and given no reasons for holding that the plaintiff did not have any land, even to that extent, in paimash No. 16, and(2) that the documents, Exs. J, K and L were wrongly rejected by the lower appellate Court.2. In regard to the first question learned Counsel for the appellant is not even today in a position to satisfy me as to the extent of the area contained in paimash No. 16 or that the 7 1/2 kulis mentioned in Ex. A had any reference to 1 acre 73 cents for which the suit was br...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Naicker Vs. Sambanda Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad918; (1941)2MLJ390
Wadsworth, J.1. These two matters arise out of an application for the filing of a complaint under Section 206 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the cutting of trees alleged to be under an attachment at the instance of the District Munsif 's Court, Poonamallee. The application was rejected by the District Munsif mainly on the ground that the attachment covered trees described as Palavrukshangal which the learned District, Munsif interpreted as fruit bearing trees, not including casuarina trees such as were cut. The applicant appealed to the District Judge of Chingleput who differed from the, District Munsif as to the interpretation of the phrase he translating it as 'various trees' not as 'fruit bearing trees' and considering that the attachment was intended to cover all the trees on the land and not merely fruit bearing trees. But the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the materials on the record of the District Munsif 's inquiry were not sufficient to justify the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.N. Panchapakesa Aiyar, an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ847
Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, J.1. Prayer (c) is the only outstanding matter to be dealt with. The applicant who has been found to be a creditor was denied participation in the dividend by reason of a fraud practised upon the Court by the insolvent. It was represented that the applicant had agreed to have her rights postponed to those of the other creditors and that she was a major at the time. It is clear that she was not a major at the time and there is reason to think that the learned advocate who purported to act for her proceeded upon a mistake of fact in making such a representation to the Court. In these circumstances I hold that the payment of dividends to the other creditors cannot be held to have been duly made within the meaning of the expression in Section 31 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The creditors who received dividends from the Official Assignee shall pay back into his hands such amount each as is necessary to make up the proper dividend payable to the applicant on...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Venugopala Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T.K. Embaru Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad851; (1941)2MLJ378
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal is concerned with the interpretation of Order 45, Rule 1, Clause (d) of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court. Order 45, states when an originating summons may issue. Clause (d) of Rule 1 provides for the issue of an originating summons to compel executors, administrators or trustees to pay into Court moneys in their hands. The appellants say that before an order can be passed under this clause it must be admitted by the defendant that he has money actually in his hands. The respondents say that this interpretation is too narrow and the Court can on the issue of an originating summons investigate accounts of an executor, administrator or trustee and order him to pay into Court what is found to be due by him.2. The relevant facts of this case are these. On the 7th December, 1926 one Chellammal died leaving a will dated the 19th August, 1926. She appointed three executors, two of whom are the present appellants. On the 4th May, 1927, t...
Tag this Judgment!thekke Mannengath Ittichiri Alias Ammu Poduvalssiar Vs. Vengalur Naduv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad122; (1941)2MLJ424
Somayya, J.1. The appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for redemption of a kanom and for other reliefs. The first defendant is the kanomdar whose mortgage was sought to be redeemed. He died after the action and his legal representative is the first respondent in this appeal. The property in suit is trust property and defendants 2 and 9 in the action were the urallars or the trustees of the devaswom.2. The main defence is that in proceedings under the Malabar Tenancy Act the first defendant got a renewal under Section 25 of the Act that the renewal which he obtained was still subsisting and that therefore the suit for redemption was premature. Both the lower Courts upheld this contention and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this appeal.3. It appears that the jenmis, that is, defendants 2 to 9 as representing the devaswom of which they are the urallars, filed O.S. No. 556 of 1931 for redemption of the mortgages of both the present plaintiff and of the present f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »