Chennai Court August 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.
Sasala Raminaidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad127; (1941)2MLJ577
Somayya, J.1. The appellant brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the order of the Sub-Collector, Vizagapatam, dated 16th June, 1926, dismissing him from the hereditary office of village headman of Veeraghattam is ultra vires and illegal. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit holding that the order of the Sub-Collector was not ultra vires his powers.2. What happened in this case was that there were several complaints against the appellant, none of which was taken serious note of by the authorities. But when complaints persisted to pour in, action was ultimately taken in the year 1926 and the Sub-Collector of the place asked the Tahsildar to hold an inquiry and submit a report. The Tahsildar examined certain witnesses, framed some charges in addition to those that had been framed by the Sub-Collector and called upon the appellant to submit his explanation. He submitted an explanation on the 3rd May, 1926 and the matter was considered by the Su...
T.P. Manicka Mudaliar Vs. Ammakannu Alias Venkalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad129
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Whether Madurai Naicken was the legitimate son of Narayanaswami Mudali is the only question that falls to be determined in this appeal. Both Narayanaswami and Vanajakshi were members of the Naick community and were alleged by the plaintiff to have been married. The marriage was found to have been established by the trial Court and from the manner in which the judgment of the lower appellate Court proceeds, it may be assumed that this finding was affirmed. In spite of this, however, their conclusions on the question of Madurai's legitimacy were conflicting. The District Munsif's finding is in para. 20 of his judgment. It is in the following words:I am of opinion that there is no evidence worth the name, or even any attempt to prove non-access as between the married husband and wife.2. The District Judge on the other hand, found that the presumption raised by Section 112, Evidence Act, had been effectively rebutted. This inference was drawn from certain circumstances w...
In Re: Perianna Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad31; (1941)2MLJ420
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The prosecution case was that the Deputy Tahsildar saw a number of goats grazing in the forest and that finding that the owner had no license for so grazing them, he proceeded to drive them to the cattle pound. On the way, the Deputy Tahsildar was met by the first and second accused, who are brothers and owners of the goats, and by the third accused, their friend. Without disclosing the fact that the first and second accused were the owners of the goats they told the Deputy Tahsildar that they would assist him in driving the goats to the pound and they led him not to the pound but to their own pen. The Deputy Tahsildar duly drove the goats into the pen and upon entering the village to inform the village magistrate, he was told that the enclosure into which he had driven the goats was not a cattle pound but a private pen of the owners of the goats. The Deputy Tahsildar thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of the local Sub-Magistrate, and in due course a charge was...
P. Venugopala Pillai Vs. Thirugnanavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad847; (1941)2MLJ866
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissing the plaintiff's suit. It was brought for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,848-4-7 being the amount of kist paid by the plaintiff in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint for faslis 1333 to 1335 (1924 to 1926). The plaint was filed on 1st April, 1936 and on 13th October, 1937, he withdrew his claim in respect of fasli 1333 on the ground that it had been adjusted in O.S. No. 4 of 1933 on the file of the same Court and confined his claim only to faslis 1334 to 1335. The circumstances under which the plaintiff had to pay the said kists are set out by him as follows. The properties belonged to one Thangasami Pillai who executed a will on 6th July, 1915, bequeathing them to his daughter the defendant who was then a minor and appointing Sundarathachi his mother and the grandmother of the defendant to be her guardian to manage the property during her minority; in th...
S.K.T. Soundararajalu Vs. Minor Shanmugam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ184
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of money due under a promissory note executed by the first defendant on his own behalf and as guardian of defendants 2 and 3. The defendants are brothers the first defendant being the eldest and are the sons of one Manicka Samayar who died in or about 1926. Manicka Samayar during his life carried on business in medicine in partnership with one Vythilinga Pillai and after the death of Vythilinga Pillai with his son Chandrasekharan Pillai. On the date of the death of Manicka Samayar all his three sons were minors. The 1st defendant attained majority in 1929 and he started a business in medicine and the money borrowed under the promissory note was in respect of this business. Defendants 2 and 3 deny their liability for the said debt on the ground that the business started by the first defendant was not ancestral business but a new business and therefore they are not liable for the debts incurred in respect th...
Dukka Gangayya and anr. Vs. Buddepu Lakshmi Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad93; (1941)2MLJ510
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The facts which led to the institution of the two connected suits out of which the present appeals have arisen are simple and may be briefly narrated. The respondent obtained an order under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance against her husband in M. C. No. 97 of 1933 in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Berhampur. She got certain quantities of paddy attached in execution of the order passed by that Court. After attachment the paddy was stored in two pits. It was subsequently sold by the Magistrate and the sale proceeds are lying in that Court. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 201 of 1936 is the second wife of the respondent's husband, the plaintiff in the other suit being (her) maternal uncle. Both of them set up a claim to the whole of the paddy attached by the Magistrate but their claim petitions were rejected. They consequently brought the two suits. These suits were for the recovery of money either from the Magistrate's Court or from the resp...
S.M. Enayatullah Saheb Vs. S.A.K. Jeelani Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad136; (1941)2MLJ740
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance touching the applicability of Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act to policies of life insurance effected in 1905 by a Mohammadan on his own life for the benefit of his children. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to five policies being Nos. 65284 to 65288. The plaintiff is the father, defendants 2 and 4 to 9 are his sons and defendants 10 and 11 are his daughters. Policy No. 65284 was effected for the benefit of the second defendant, No. 65285 for the benefit of the fourth defendant, No. 65286 for the benefit of the eighth defendant, No. 65287 for the benefit of one of his daughters who is not a party to the suit and No. 65288 for the benefit of the tenth defendant. The first defendant is the Oriental Life Assurance Company with whom the policies were effected. The third defendant is the Official Assignee of Madras representing the estate of the second defendant. The s...
Pethuraju Kone Vs. thenirkulam Muthuswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad128; (1941)2MLJ784
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 to vacate an order on a claim petition. Plaintiff is the attaching creditor: defendant 1 is the claimant; defendants 2 to 4 are the judgment-debtors. Defendant l's title is based upon two sale-deeds, Ex. IV by defendants 2 to 4 to one Muthukrishna Aiyar in 1927 and Ex. I by Muthukrishna Aiyar to himself in 1932. It has been held as a question of fact that defendant 1 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration under Ex. I and plaintiff's , suit has been dismissed. In this appeal plaintiff contends that the issue between himself and defendant 1 is res judicata in his favour.2. This contention is based upon the following facts. One T. V. Krishna Aiyar another creditor of defendants 2 to 4 attached in execution of his decree against them the crops standing on the land now in dispute. Muthukrishna Aiyar claimed under Ex. IV to be the owner of the land and the crops. His claim was dismissed. Against that order of dismissal ...
In Re: Chillara Seshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad293; (1942)1MLJ34
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for not taking out a licence for a coffee house and that conviction has been upheld on appeal. She has been fined Rs. 5 and been ordered to pay the licence fee of Rs. 6.2. This revision case was admitted by my learned brother Lakshmana Rao because at the time when this petition came up for admission he was shown a Short Notes Report of a decision by Coutts Trotter, C.J., and Srinivasa Aiyangar, J. in Crl.R.C. No. 556 of 1926 reported at page 96, Short Notes of 51 M.L.J. I called for the judgment in question. It is a very short one and it is not very clear from the judgment why it was held that the petitioner in that ease was not conducting a coffee Hotel. However, in Crl.R.C. No. 557 of 1926, which was heard with it and in which the facts were very similar, it was held that there was no ground for holding that the Magistrate was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner in that case did keep a coffee house. The distinctio...
In Re: P.D. Curtis, an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad27; (1941)2MLJ845
Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application taken out by the insolvent for an order for the following reliefs:(i) for an order to revoke the order attaching the insolvent's salary,(ii) for the refund of the amounts of allocation recovered beyond a total period of two years, and(iii) for the suspension of the allocation ordered for a month pending disposal of the present application.2. The Insolvent in this case was by an order made by this Court in July, 1938 directed to pay an allocation of Rs. 25 which was subsequently increased by an order dated 9th April, 1940 to Rs. 125. On 22nd October, 1940 the allocation was reduced to Rs. 100. These orders were duly communicated to the insolvent who has in all paid allocation for 34 months. The insolvent now applies for a revocation of the allocation order not by virtue of any provision contained in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, but under the provisions of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code relating to attachments. The applicant's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »