Chennai Court January 1942 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.
Chinnaswami Naidu Vs. Ramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad471; (1942)1MLJ436
Happell, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit brought against him in the Panchayat Court of Kadayampatti. That suit was dismissed on the ground of the non-appearance of either of the parties. The appellant, however, after the suit had been dismissed by the Panchayat Court, filed a petition in the District Munsif's Court, Sankari, praying that a complaint should be made by the District Munsif to a Criminal Court against the respondent plaintiff in the suit in the Panchayat Court on the ground that the promissory note was forged. The District Munsif was of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition and dismissed it. On appeal to the District Court, Salem, the learned District Judge also held that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to make a, complaint under Section 476. Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant, however, had also filed a petition in the District Court asking the learned District Judge to make a complaint of the criminal offence alleged on ...
K.S.V. Ramaswami Mudaliar Vs. K.L. Dargan, Examiner of Local Fund Acco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad463; (1942)1MLJ394
King, J.1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether certain items surcharged against the President of the Bhavani Pahchayat Board for the Official year 1938-1939 have been rightly '90 surcharged or not.2. The first item refers to a sum of Rs. 35. This sum ought to have been collected by the President, who is the appellant here, from certain persons who carried on trade within the Union without taking a licence. It is the case for the Government that these persons were permitted by the appellant to carry on their trades without ever calling upon them to take a licence and pay the requisite licence fee. The learned Additional District Judge of Coimbatore against whose order this appeal has been filed holds that the Panchayat Board had no right of suit in respect of these sums, the reason being that no licences were actually issued. If licences are not actually issued, it cannot be said that any licence fee is legally due from persons to whom they ought to have been issued. There i...
In Re: Penubolu Subbaramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad451; (1942)1MLJ489
ORDERHorwill, J.1. It has been repeatedly laid down that the proper stage at which to apply for a copy of a witness's statement is at the beginning of the cross-examination. This was apparently done by the counsel for the accused; and so the Magistrate was bound to grant the application.2. This method however, if strictly followed, would lead to interminable delays. In practice, copies are either granted in advance or the Court reads out the relevant part of the accused's statement or the vakil is allowed to look into the diary. In the last two cases, copies must still be furnished if required; but the examination of witnesses need not be held up while this is being done.3. Some co-operation between the counsel and the Court is necessary to make Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code work smoothly.4. The petition is allowed and the Magistrate ordered to furnish the copies prayed for....
Kannepalli Chinna Venkata Chelamiah Sastri Vs. Meduru Annapoornamma an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad353; (1942)1MLJ469
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. When the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Udaypal Singh v. Lakhmi Chand I.L.R. (1935) All. 261 and the judgment of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand (1940) 1 M.L.J. 895 : L.R. 67 IndAp 160 : I.L.R.(1940) Lah. 470 are examined, it is quite clear that there is nothing in the judgment of the Judicial Committee to throw doubt on the long line of decisions of this Court referred to in Dosapati Ramayya v. Pattam Anjayya : AIR1942Mad146 . The case of Rama Shah v. Lal Chand (1940) 1 M.L.J. 895 : L.R. 67 IndAp 160 : I.L.R. (1940) Lah. 470 had reference to Section 20 of the Limitation Act and there is nothing in the judgment which can be deemed to be by way of interpretation of Section 19, beyond the statement that Section 19, is not to be read as based upon the theory of implied promise. Section 19, applies to an acknowledgment of liability in writing and in deciding whether the words used constitute an acknowledgment, th...
Gogineni Venkatappayya and anr. Vs. Mallampati Mallayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad410; (1942)1MLJ388
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises questions relating to proviso (c) to Section 3 (ii) of the Madras Agriculturists' Belief Act. The petitioners applied under Section 19 to scale down a decree. It was held that they were not agriculturists by reason of their having been assessed within the two years preceding the 1st October, 1937, to property tax in respect of buildings of an annual rental value exceeding Rs. 600.2. The facts established are that at the beginning of 1936, the petitioners were the owners of properties which stood in the name of somebody else in the municipal register and were valued at,Rs. 15,000, which according to the method of calculation laid down in the Act would imply a rental value of Rs. 750. On the basis of this valuation, tax was actually demanded from the petitioners for the second half year of 1935-36. The petitioners filed an application Ex. C, dated 15th February, 1936, wherein they prayed the Commissioner to cancel the tax on the ground ...
Perumalla Venkayya Vs. Batchu Pullayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad466; (1942)1MLJ390
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition is preferred against a decision under the rules framed by the Provincial Government under Section 28 of Madras Act IV of 1938 and promulgated in G.O. No. 2634 (Development), dated 27th October, 1939.2. An objection to the maintainability of the revision petition was raised on the ground that Rule 9 of these rules provides a right of appeal and that when there is a right of appeal there can be no revision. This objection is met by the contention that Rule 9 of the rules is itself ultra vires of the Provincial Government and that, therefore, it must be deemed that there is no valid right of appeal, with the result that the right of revision is the only remedy of an aggrieved person.3. The question first to be determined is, therefore, whether Rule 9 is beyond the powers of the Provincial Government. We decided yesterday in C.R-P. No. 910 of 1941, since reported in Swayamprabhai Ammal v. Muthukrishna Padayachi : AIR1942Mad362 , that the main procedure laid do...
R. Chidambara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. K.V. Ranganatham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad512; (1942)1MLJ428
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants have been adjudicated insolvents by an order of this Court, dated the 28th October, 1941. They challenge the validity of that order on two grounds. In the first place they say that no act of insolvency was committed, and in the second place that the evidence does not prove that there was a debt due to the petitioning creditor on the date of his application.2. On the 29th January, 1941, a creditor, who had filed a suit against the appellants, obtained an order for the attachment before judgment of certain immovable property belonging to them. The suit was successful, and on the 27th July, 1941, a decree was passed against the appellants for Rs. 10,500. On the llth September, 1941, the decree-holder applied for the sale of the property which was already under attachment. The petition for adjudication of the appellants was filed on the 17th October, 1941, and the act of insolvency alleged was that the debtors' property had been under attach...
Swayamprabhai Ammal and ors. Vs. D. Muthukrishna Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad362; (1942)1MLJ303
Wadsworth, J. 1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether Rule 2 of the rules framed under G.O. No. 2634 (Development), dated 27th October, 1939, in exercise of the powers under Section 28 (1) and Section 28 (2) (b) and (c) of Madras Act IV of 1938 is ultra vires. The rule in question prescribes a procedure whereby when any debt other than a decree debt is due by an alleged agriculturist, either the debtor or the creditor may apply to the Court for a declaration as to the amount of the debt and it is provided that no such application shall be maintainable if any suit for the recovery of the debt be pending and further that if while an application is pending a suit is filed for the debt, the application shall be dismissed. R. 9 of the same rules gives a right of appeal and second appeal from any declaration under these rules.2. We are concerned in the present case with an application by the son of a mortgagor for a declaration that the mortgage debt is discharged by reas...
Vadakkunnadhan Devaswam Utama, His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ366
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary to the Government of Cochin in his capacity as jenmi of certain lands in British India, For these lands he obtained a decree for rent for the period from 1930 to 1935. The tenant filed two applications under Madras Act IV of 1938, one purporting to be under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act praying the Court to receive a deposit of the last two years' rent and cancel the arrears embodied in the decree and the other purporting to be under Section 19 of the Act to record satisfaction of the decree by reason of the discharge to be ordered under the connected petition. The trial Court held that the deposit made fully discharged the arrears of rent for the two prescribed faslis and having accepted the deposit, it directed full satisfaction of the decree to be recorded. Against this latter order an appeal was filed before the learned District Judge who took the same view of the kanom document as that taken by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal...
K.C. Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. M.A. Palaniswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad460; (1942)1MLJ396
Happell, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether in execution of a decree an arrangement between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor entered into before the suit was filed can be pleaded in bar of execution. The suit in question was O.S. No. 270 of 1938, a suit for the recovery of money from four persons, of whom the present respondent was the 1st defendant. A decree was passed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,223-13-6 with costs against the four defendants jointly and severally. When, however, the plaintiff-appellant proceeded to take out execution, the 1st defendant pleaded an arrangement by which the appellant had agreed that he would proceed against the 2nd and 4th defendants and recover the amount due under the decree from them and that, only if he could not recover from them, would he take steps to recover the whole amount or the balance that was due from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant's case was that the appellant had consented to this agreement because he had...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »