Chennai Court September 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.
Pasumarthi Venkateswara Rao, Minor by Next Friend and Grand-father Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad422; (1942)1MLJ222
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, O.S. No. 73 of 1934, filed on behalf of two minor plaintiffs who were brothers by their maternal grandfather. The father of the plaintiffs is defendant 4. When the suit was filed a step-brother of the plaintiffs was in the womb. After his birth he was impleaded as defendant 11 but died before the preliminary decree was passed. It is common ground that the share of defendant 4 and his sons in the family property is one-third. In its preliminary decree the first Court declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to half of this one-third, and that defendant 4 was entitled to the other half, one-fourth in his own right, and one-fourth by inheritance from his son defendant 11. Plaintiffs appealed. While the appeal was pending plaintiff 1 died. It was held by the appellate Court that his share fell to his father defendant 4, so that in the appellate decree plaintiff 2 is declared entitled to one-fourth, of one-third and defendant 4 en...
C. Ethiraja Mudaliar Vs. N. Murugesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad282; (1941)2MLJ1088
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a batch of appeals arising out of suits filed by the tenants of Zamin Devaranjeri village, Ponneri Taluk under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act for raising the attachment of the holdings effected by the appellant. Several grounds were alleged in the plaint of which three require notice:(1) There was no proper exchange of patta and muchilika between the plaintiff and the defendant for the fasli 1343 and there was no proper tender of patta. Therefore the attachment proceedings were not proper and valid.(2) It is not competent for the appellant to initiate the proceedings for sale under the Estates Land Act on the ground that he was not the sole proprietor of the village and that there were other co-sharers who ought to have joined in the proceedings.(3) The merais claimed in the demand notice were not legally enforceable.2. The defendant in the written statement urged that there were valid pattas and muchilikas in force, that he was competent to ...
Manikkam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Krishnappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad382; (1942)1MLJ24
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants are certain of the defendants in a suit on a mortgage deed (Ex. A), dated 6th March, 1926. The mortgage was executed by four brothers, namely, defendants 1 to 3 and one Gopalaswami who is dead and who is represented by defendants 4 to 8. The appellants represent the branches of the 1st and 3rd defendants who were held by the lower Court not to be agriculturists. The only question argued in appeal relates to the correctness of this conclusion.2. It was conceded in the lower Court that the appellants had a saleable interest in agricultural property, but the plaintiff sought to exclude them from the benefits of the Act on the basis that both the 1st and 3rd defendants had been assessed to profession-tax so as to bring them within the purview of proviso (B) to Section 3 (ii) of the Act and applying Section 6 of the Act, the same exclusion operated against the sons of these two defendants. The evidence regarding the assessment of these two defendants to profes...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. E.V. D'Silva
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad906; (1941)2MLJ591
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Section 60, Sub-section (1) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, states that, where an insolvent is an officer of the Army or Navy or of the Royal Indian Navy or a person in the Civil Service of the Crown, the Official Assignee shall receive for distribution amongst the creditors so much of the insolvent's pay or salary liable to attachment in execution of a decree as the Court may direct. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides inter alia that the salary of a public officer shall not be attachable to the extent of the first Rs. 100 and one half the remainder of his salary. It has for many years been the practice of the Official Assignee of Madras in all the cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the debts due to the creditors to ask the Court to order an insolvent who is a public servant to pay over to him part of his salary for the benefit of the creditors. The applications and the orders passed thereon have not been limited to...
In Re: Kandasami Solagar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad213
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore of an offence punishable under Section 304, part 2, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The deceased was an old lady of 55 years of age and sho, like her son P.W. 8 and his brother, were farm servants of the accused. On the day of offence, P.W. 8 and his mother came to the field of the accused without the brother of P.W. 8 and they were at once taken to task by the accused for not bringing him. P.W. 8 gave an excuse which obviously did not satisfy the accused; and so the accused attempted to beat him. Fortunately for P.W. 8, he was able to run away and received a mere glancing blow on the back which did not cause any injury. The deceased saw that the accused was attempting to strike her son and so she intervened on his behalf and scolded the accused for attacking her son. Unfortunately for her, the accused was very irritable because he had been beaten just before by P.WS. ...
Nallappa Goundan Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad19; (1941)2MLJ618
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Karur under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for the defamation of his wife. He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The defamatory words had been uttered by the petitioner when giving evidence in support of a complaint filed by him to the effect that his wife had been guilty of theft. In the course of his evidence in support of the complaint he accused his wife of unchastity. They had quarrelled and she was living separately, but in the same building. The conviction of the petitioner was confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly on appeal. The petitioner now asks this Court to set aside the conviction on the ground that a complaint of defamation which is based on a statement in Court can only be filed by the Court in which the statement was made. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question. In t...
Sri Chitturi Narayanamma Vs. Vankina Venkatachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad143; (1941)2MLJ703
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the reduction of her claim on the basis of a defence under Madras Act IV of 1938. The suit was on a mortgage (Ex. A) dated 10th January, 1931, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 20,000. The mortgage deed recites four previous debts, the discharge of which provided the consideration for the document. They are as follows: (1) Ex. B, a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 dated 18th August, 1928, executed by the first defendant's father in favour of P. W. 4, the husband of the plaintiff; (2) Ex. D, a promissory note for Rs. 2,025 dated 30th September, 1929, between the same parties that is, the first defendant's father and the plaintiff's husband; (3) Ex. C, a promissory note for Rs. 5,429-5-0 executed on 11th February, 1930, by the first defendant himself in favour of the plaintiff's husband. This promissory note recites the discharge of an earlier promissory note debt incurred by the first defendant's fath...
In Re: Karuppayya thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad227; (1941)2MLJ999
Horwill, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore charged the appellant with the murder of Visalakshi Ammal by striking her on the head with a heavy stick and causing an extensive fracture of the skull. He however found him guilty only under Section 304, para. 2, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution evidence, there was a quarrel because P. W. 7 had stolen a chisel from Rangaswami Asari, a relative of the accused, when Rangaswami Asari failed to pay P.W. 7 his wages. On the 11th of September, P. W. 7 was beaten by the accused, and on the following day, that is, on the 12th, Murugayya and Rangaswami Asari went to P. W. 8's house and continued the quarrel. There was also a disturbance in the early evening of the 13th. The actual attack which resulted in the murder took place at about 8 P.M. ; and it arose because P. W. 4, a respectable man in the village, went to the persons who were quarrelling and attempted to p...
Chidambaram Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Sellakumara Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad903; (1941)2MLJ684
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which has been referred is this:Is a suit by a creditor under S. S3 of the Transfer of Property Act to set aside an alienation made by the debtor before he is adjudged an insolvent maintainable without the leave of the Insolvency Court?2. In Vasudeva Kamath v. Lakshminarayana Rao (1918) 36 M.L.J. 453 : I.L.R. Mad. 684 a Bench of this Court (Wallis, C.J., and Ayling, J.,) held that such a suit could not be instituted without the leave of the Insolvency Court and this decision was accepted as being correct by the Rangoon High Court in Mohamed Adjim Nacoda v. E.M. Chettyar Firm I.L.R.(1930) Rang. 7 and by the Lahore High Court in Din Mohammad v. Mt. Walait Begum A.I.R. 1938 Lah. 856. The decision was, however, strongly criticised by another Bench of this Court (Wallace and Thiruvenkatachariar, JJ.,) in Subramanyam v. Narasimham (1928) 56 M.L.J. 489. We consider that there is full justification for the criticism.3. Section 53 of the Transfer o...
Vasi Reddi Venkayya Vs. Gopu Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad935; (1941)2MLJ798
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether an adoption by a Hindu widow of a son to her deceased husband is valid when the authority to adopt has been given by the nearest sapinda and expressed in general terms. In other words, must the sapinda consent to the adoption of a particular person in order to make the adoption valid? The first plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was adopted on the 7th May, 1920, by Venkamma, the widow of one Sivaramayya. No authority had been given by Sivaramayya to his widow, but she informed the nearest sapinda of her intention to adopt and sought his consent. The sapinda gave his consent in writing, the operative portion of the document being in these words:You shall therefore, whenever you like, bring and adopt duly a boy whom you like according to Shastras. This is the deed of authority to adopt executed and delivered by me wholeheartedly.The first plaintiff sued as the adopted son and asked f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »