Chennai Court August 1941 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Kandulapati Kanakaratnam Vs. Kandulapati Narasimha Rao, Being Minor by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad937; (1941)2MLJ803
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the adoption by a Hindu widow of a son to her deceased husband is invalid when the widow is actuated, not by a sense of religious duty, but by an improper motive.2. On the 8th June, 1931 one Kandulapati Gopalam died leaving two widows, the second respondent and the appellant. The second respondent was the senior widow. On the 20th October, 1931 the second respondent purported to adopt the first respondent and it is not suggested that any of the necessary formalities were ignored. On the 17th December, 1935 the first respondent filed in the Court of the District Judge of West Godavari the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover possession of Gopalam's estate. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore. The first respondent alleged that Gopalam had by will given authority to the second respondent to adopt a son. He also alleged that irrespe...
Vali Chetti Munuswami Chetti Vs. Vali Chetti Venkataswami Chetti and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad610; (1942)1MLJ213
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was the judgment-debtor under a decree of the Presidency Small Cause Court. The decree was passed in 1934 without contest. After Act IV of 1938 came into force a petition was filed under Section 19 of that Act to scale down the decree and the decree was scaled down, but not to the extent which the judgment-debtor thought proper. The judgment-debtor, therefore, filed a new trial application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. This application was rejected on the ground that the suit out of which the amended decree arose was an uncontested suit. The present revision petition is preferred against this order and it is contended that although the original suit was uncontested, when once the application under Act IV of 1938 was allowed, the suit was re-opened and it became a contested suit and against the amended decree a new trial application would lie.2. Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act provides that,Where a suit...
In Re: Dabbala Koricha Nagadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad33
Burn, J.1. These two appellants have been convicted of offences under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code. They were tried by jury and the verdict of the jury was unanimous. So far as appellant 2 is concerned his appeal was dismissed summarily under Section 421, Criminal P.C. The case of appellant 1 alone comes up for consideration because of the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment passed upon him.2. There is no allegation of misdirection and the charge to the jury shows no signs of misdirection. There is therefore no appeal on the facts. The sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, because appellant 1 was a member of a criminal tribe who had been previously convicted of one of the offences specified in Schedule 1 appended to the Criminal Tribes Act. It was therefore obligatory upon the learned Sessions Judge under Section 23 (1)(a), Criminal Tribes Act, to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not less than seven yea...
Mrs. Raji Bai Ammal, Guardian and Mother of Minor Dickson Chandrabasan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad251; (1941)2MLJ693
ORDERHorwill, J.1. In view of the clear wording of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, all admissions of paternity are irrelevant if the complainant fails to prove that she and her husband had no access at the time when the child could have been begotten.2. The Magistrate has held that there may have been access. The petition for maintenance had necessarily therefore to be dismissed, however convincing the evidence adduced by the complainant might have been.3. This petition is dismissed....
In Re: P. Rama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad92; (1941)2MLJ746
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was admittedly an attestor to a forged document. There had been litigation between P. W. 9 and the 9th accused and P. W. 9 had obtained a decree against the 9th accused for maintenance. The forged document purported to be a discharge of that decree debt. 2. The appellant admits that he was an attestor, and the evidence shows that he knew of the litigation between the parties. The writer of the document turned approver and was examined as P.W. 3. He states that at the time when the document was forged, a blank space was left for the attestation of some other person and that when he saw the document again, that space was filled by the signature of the appellant. The appellant did hot deny this but explained:I was in my field in Nalagampalle. I did not see the payment of any money. I said 'How can I sign when I have not witnessed the payment?' He (Lingama Naidu, the 1st accused) said, 'She has affixed her thumb impression. The witnesses have all signed. Can you...
Kuppala Subbarayudu and anr. Vs. Ammanamanchi Venkatasubbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad375; (1942)1MLJ87
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna : (1937)2MLJ11 for-the purpose of Section 60 (1) (c), Civil Procedure Code, an agriculturist is defined as follows:An 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be a tiller of the soil really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise.2. It seems to me having regard to evidence in this case the appellants would be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c). The evidence in this case is that the appellants have no other Vocation except agriculture. They keep their plough, bullocks and carts in their house. Therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists. This would satisfy even the view taken in Muthuvenhatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90. : I.L.R. Mad. 227 on which the lower Courts rely3. I therefore reverse the decision...
Hamidgani Ammal (One of the L.Rs. of the Deceased First Respondent) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad898; (1941)2MLJ622
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether a person who has been brought into Court in execution proceedings merely as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor is compelled to have his own claims to the property in suit decided in the execution proceedings or whether he can establish his rights by a separate suit. 2. On the 24th November, 1927 one Habib Muhammad Maracair agreed to sell certain wet lands to one Vaidhialinga Mudaliar, who was the fourth defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises and is now represented by the third and fourth respondents. the vendor failed to execute a conveyance and the purchaser instituted a suit in the District Court of Negapatam for a decree for specific performance. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court for hearing. The appellant was made a party to that suit because she claimed a share (7/72) in it. She was made a party on her own application, which was opp...
Nanduri Venkatasubba Row Vs. Dr. Taylor Stanley Philip, M.R.C.S. (Eng. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad16; (1941)2MLJ505
Gentle, J.1. The appellant before me applied to sue in forma pauperis. His application was summarily dismissed by the learned Master against whose decision this appeal has been preferred.2. The plaint is drafted by the appellant himself and although it does not set out as concisely and succinctly the matters of the claim which he desires to prefer as would have been the case had a qualified and experienced lawyer been the draftsman, the substance of the claim which he makes against the two defendants is as follows. The first defendant is a doctor living in Secunderabad in the dominion of the Nizam and is employed by the State Railways. The second defendant is an advocate of this Court living in Vizagapatam. The appellant appears to allege that the first defendant in Secunderabad wrote a medical certificate in respect of the plaintiff which contained defamatory matter concerning his mental condition. There is no allegation that the letter was published in Madras and the appellant before...
K.N. Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. the Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ910
ORDERGentle, J.1. The applicant is a creditor of the company which is being wound up. The Official Liquidator refused to place him in the list of preferential creditors and the object of this application is to obtain an order that he should be treated as such preferential creditor.2. The ground upon which preference is claimed is that a sum of Rs. 140 was paid by the applicant to the company in circumstances which created a trust, the company being the trustee and the applicant the cestui que trust.3. The applicant was the assignee of a policy of insurance issued by the company in respect of which about two years premia were in arrears and the policy had lapsed. After correspondence passing between the applicant and the company, Exs. P. 1 to P. 5, in which the company stated that upon payment of the amount of the premia in arrear amounting to Rs. 140 and a medical certificate being supplied in respect of the person insured by the policy, this would be revived. On the 20th June, 1940, t...
Ratnavelu Pillai and anr. Vs. Varadaraja Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad585; (1942)1MLJ569
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies against the order directing the plaintiffs to give the market value of the land and pay court-fees thereon. The plaintiffs paid court-fees on the basis of the nett profits from the land for the previous year claiming to come within Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act and the proviso to the Madras Act which brings in the method of court -fee calculation provided in Section 7, Clause (v). Kumaraswami Sastri and Wallace, JJ., in Rani Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (1927) 55 M.L.J. 345 : I.L.R. Mad. 664 overruled the preliminary objection and held on a consideration of the authorities that such an order can be the subject of interference under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. My attention has been drawn to the decision by Sir Sidney Burn, J., in K. Manatithunainatha Desikar v. Gopala Chettiar : AIR1939Mad380 to the contrary where Ram Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Rama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »