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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by Collector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad244; (1941)2MLJ993
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether a sale held for recovery of penal assessment imposed under the Madras Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 prevails over prior encumbrances.2. A sum of Rs. 1,182 and odd was the assessment and penalty imposed by the Government for the encroachments on certain lands belonging to the Government by one Venkata Satteyya. The plaintiff in the suit had obtained two mortgages from Satteyya on his properties and had filed a suit and obtained a final decree on foot of those mortgages. As the Government was bringing the property to sale under the provisions of Madras Act III of 1905 read with Madras Act II of 1864 the plaintiff protested that the land should be sold subject to his mortgages. But the Government ordered the sale to be held free of all prior encumbrances. The plaintiff then paid the amount under protest and filed the present suit for recovery of the sum. If a sale for penal assessment and penalty imposed under Madras...
In Re: Packirisami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad288
Horwill, J.1. Accused I and 2 in the Court's of the Sessions Judge of East Tanjorewere charged Under Section 304 (1), Penal Code, with causing serious injuries to the person of one Sivaswami Servai which led to his death. They were charged Under Section 304(1) and not Under Section 302, Penal Code, because the evidence was thought to show that the deceased had given a blow to accused 1 which justified them in causing such injury to the deceased as would be sufficient to prevent him from causing the necessary further injury. Accused 2 was acquitted because the learned Sessions Judge thought that the circumstances of the case made it probable that he was not present at the scene of the offence when the crime was committed. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused 3 was charged with abetting the offence Under Section 304(1); but it was found that he had taken no part in the attack on the deceased and had not instigated the appellants. So he too was acquitte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›