Chennai Court January 1942 Judgments
In Re: Tamalampudi Veeranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad440; (1942)1MLJ455
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused was an old offender. He was charged by the Police before the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry with attempting, to steal a purse from a person's pocket. The Joint Magistrate thought that as Section 75, Indian Penal Code, would have to be applied, the accused ought to be punished with a larger sentence than he himself could impose; and so he transferred the case to the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Rajahmundry to be tried as a P. E. case and the accused committed to Sessions if the Stationary Sub-Magistrate thought that a prima facie case had been made out against him. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate after enquiry thought that a prima facie case had been made out and committed the accused to Sessions. The Sessions Judge on reading the committal order was of the opinion that the committal was illegal, in that Section 75, Indian Penal Code, does not apply to an offence punishable under Section 511, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 379, Indian Pena...
Tag this Judgment!Manakkal Kumaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad446; (1942)1MLJ460
King, J.1. The five appellants were involved in a case of rioting and murder at a village in the Calicut Taluk on the night of 31st March last. All of them were convicted of rioting, two of them being convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, because of their possession of lethal weapons, and the first and second appellants were convicted of two murders committed by them in the course of the occurrence. The remaining appellants were also convicted on two counts of constructive liability for these murders.2. The story of the occurrence is comparatively simple. A festival extending over several days was being celebrated at the temple where the occurrence took place and on 30th March, these appellants created a disturbance by going to that part of the pandal reserved for the womenfolk. They insulted them and began to annoy them by throwing discarded beedi ends at them. Several of the uralars or temple managers including the two murdered men, went and ejected them. There was no furth...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council Vs. Md. Sabash Khan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad481; (1942)1MLJ554
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The point for decision in this case relates to the construction of Section 69 (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The section is worded as follows:Every contract made by or on behalf of a Council whereof the value or amount exceeds (one hundred rupees) shall be in writing and except in the case of contracts made under the provisions of sub-8. (3) of Section 68 shall be signed by two municipal councillors. Provided that in the case of municipalities included in Schedule IX or notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 12-C, every such contract shall be signed by the Commissioner.The question is whether in the case of municipalities referred to in the proviso, contracts should be signed by two councillors as well as the Commissioner.2. The suit in the present case was filed by the Municipal Council of Nellore, the petitioner in this civil revision petition. It was for recovering Rs. 250 as damages from the defendant-respondent on the ground that he was highest...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Duraiswami Mudali with Several Aliases
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ591
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Sections 379 and 75, Indian Penal Code, of being an old offender and stealing a purse by putting his hand in the pocket of P.W. 1. He was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. There is no reason at all to doubt the prosecution evidence that the accused was caught while attempting to take the purse of P.W. 1. P.W. 1. however seized the purse from outside his pocket and also the accused's hand; so that although the accused did move the purse for the purpose of committing theft, he did not commit the offence of theft, because he was unable to move the purse from the possession of P.W.I. The offence was therefore one punishable under Section 511, Indian Penal Code and not under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, as the Special Honorary Magistrate found.3. Section 75, Indian Penal Code, does not apply to an offence punishable under Section 511, Indian Penal Code. The maximum that could therefore be imposed on 'the accused was 18 months...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Mahamood HussaIn Faroki Alias Chan Basha Vs. Syed Abdul Huq A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ564
Mockett, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sues for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the office and profits of the position of Khatib in the Jumma Masjid Nellore Mosque. As I am generally in agreement with a great deal of the judgment of the lower Court, it will be possible to deal with this appeal briefly.2. Ex. A is a certified extract from the Inam Register of 'Nellore Village' and is dated the 19th December, 1860. The inam was registered as being for performing the services of reading prayers in the Jumma Mosque and it is stated that the services had been performed. In column 10, it is shown that the tenure is 'hereditary' and 'to be so long as the service is performed'. It was grunted by the Nabob in 1799 and the original grantee was Abdul Huq. There is printed in the record the pedigree of the line of Khatibs which was filed by the tenth defendant who is the respondent in this appeal. All the persons who are of importance are shown. The position at the time o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Vs. Malla Ramunaid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad419
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application to scale down a decree for rent under Madras Act 4 of 1938. The tenant paid the kattubadi for Faslis 1347 and 1346 within the time stipulated under Section 15. He did not pay anything by way of interest on kuttubadi. The landholder contended in the Court below that the deposit was bad because nothing was deposited by way of interest for these faslis. The lower Court held that this was immaterial, a decision which cannot be supported as a proposition of law. But I find in the record no materials upon which it could be held that interest was in fact due on the arrears of kattubadi for those faslis. No doubt, in respect of rent under the Estates Land Act, Section 61 of that Act imposes a statutory liability for interest on arrears, but there is no such statutory provision with reference to kattubadi and the ordinary rules of the Interest Act would apply. If the plaintiff wished to non-suit the applicant on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Palamalai Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.A.L.V.V.R. Ramanathan Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad442; (1942)1MLJ439
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a sum of Rs. 1,584-7-1 lying in the Court, of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, to the credit of O.S. No. 108 of 1933. The facts are that certain properties were sold in execution of the decree in that suit and the sum of approximately Rs. 37,000, realised. The judgment-creditor and two other creditors of the judgment-debtors filed a joint statement in which the amount due to them in satisfaction of their respective decrees on the date of the confirmation of sale is entered. The total of these three amounts comes to Rs. 35,000 odd, and the balance remaining in Court is the subject-matter of this appeal.2. It appears that after the sale had been confirmed and this statement had been received from the three decree-holders, a suit was filed by the judgment-debtors in 1936 for partition and there was an application by the auction-purchaser of the property at the sale in question for an injunction against the distribution of the sale proceeds...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Chockalingam Chettiar Alias Thiagarajan Chettiar Through Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ467
King, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dismissing an application filed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was filed by a minor for whom his next friend asserted that he was the heir of the original party to the litigation who had an undoubted right to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His relationship to that original party was questioned by the respondent who put him to strict proof of his title.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that he has not sufficiently proved that he is the heir of the original party. It is difficult to understand how the learned Judge came to this conclusion. There is the definite evidence given on behalf of the petitioner establishing the fact that his father died before his uncle who was the party concerned and that his uncle had already lost his wife and had left no other heirs. No possible alternative heir to the Uncle was suggested by the re...
Tag this Judgment!N. Namberumal Chetty Vs. P. Ramayya Naidu Alias Jayaramakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad602; (1942)1MLJ561
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decision of our learned brother Moekett, J., on a notice of motion preferred by a judgment-debtor under Sections 19, 20 and 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938, praying the Court for reliefs in respect of a decree on mortgages. The decree in question was passed on the 3rd August, 1937, and made absolute in November of that year. The motion was resisted on the ground that the debtor was precluded by proviso C to Section 3 (ii) of Act IV from claiming to be an agriculturist, he having been assessed to property tax in the City of Madras on property of a rental value above the prescribed limit.2. The facts are that, during the two years preceding 1st October, 1937, the debtor was the owner of a number of houses in Madras which form part of the hypotheca of the mortgages on which the decree was passed. The mortgage suit was filed in 19,34 and a receiver was appointed under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code at the instance of the mortgagee. T...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar by His Authorised Agent K. Ponnusami Iyer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ336
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed two suits out of which these second appeals arise for possession on foot of sales held in execution of rent decrees obtained by him in the Revenue Court. The contesting defendant in each suit is the former ryot against whom suits for arrears of rent were filed in the Revenue Court. Decrees were obtained and in execution of these decrees, the holdings were brought to sale and were purchased by the plaintiff himself. The present suits are filed for possession on foot of those sales. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suits on the ground that the notice under Section 112 was not given to the ryot. The Subordinate Judge held that Section 132 of the Estates Land Act makes Section 112 of that Act applicable to sales held under the decrees of Revenue Courts and that as the notice under Section 112 was not given, the sales are bad.2. I do not agree with the above conclusion. Section 132 provides thus:The provisions of this chapter (Chapter VI) s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »