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.
In Re: G.S. Paramarth and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad439; (1942)1MLJ380
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The two petitioners were convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for an offence punishable under Rule 58 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, by engaging in exercises, movements, and drill of a military nature.2. The first petitioner is the organiser of the Rashtriya Swayam. Sevak Sangh and the second petitioner is an. Instructor. This organisation has a membership of about 200 and they drill every Sunday morning on the grounds in front of the Royal Theatre. On 17th August, 1941, the Police found about 150 members gathered there ; and P-W. 1 and other Police officers watched their evolutions for some time. They lined up in formations, saluted an orange flag, which is said to represent Hinduism, and in saluting it they performed certain evolutions with the lathis which they were holding in their hands. Some drill then took place, they divided into squads, and then two squads of four, each began to exercise with lathis. There were sixty-seven other ...
Ukkali Alias Ammu Alias Amma Nethyar and anr. Vs. Pudumana Parambath K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad399; (1942)1MLJ338
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was the decree-holder in a suit for redemption of a kanom. The decree which was passed in 1936, took the form of declaring firstly, the amounts due to the tenants defendants, for improvements and for the kanom amount and declaring secondly, that on the deposit by the plaintiff of these amounts the defendants should hand over the property and the documents to the plaintiff. Then followed a series of clauses specifying the amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff viz., for arrears of rent, for costs, commission fee and also the rate at which future rent was payable and the decree provided that 'set-off is allowed'. While this decree was still unsatisfied, the tenants defendants, preferred an application under Section 15 (4) of the Madras Act IV of 1938 praying that the deposit towards arrears of rent for faslis 1347 and 1346 might be taken into consideration and the arrears for the earlier faslis scaled down. This application was opposed by the ...
Behara Viyyamma and ors. Vs. Ayyagari Veera Venkata Satya Suryaprakasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad379; (1942)1MLJ331
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether the first respondent is the adopted son of one Suryaprakasa Rao, an inamdar of Tirupathi in the Godavari District. Suryaprakasa Rao died, in the year 1914, and it is the first respondent's case that his widow adopted him as a son to her deceased husband in 1928, the consent of the nearest sapinda having been obtained. The appeal also challenges the validity of three alienations made by the widow before the adoption. The Subordinate Judge held that the adoption of the first respondent was valid and that the alienations were not binding on him. The suit was filed by the first respondent for a declaration that his adoption was valid and for an order setting aside the alienations. The appellants are the sixth defendant who bought 1.36 acres of land from the widow, the legal representatives of one Peda Subbanna in whose favour the widow executed a usufructuary mortgage of another property, and the legal representa...
Oorpokkil alias Athikkot Parvathi Amma's daughter Visalakshi Amma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ408
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiffs whose right to a share in the income of the suit properties prior to the date of suit has been disallowed are the appellants and they challenge the finding of the lower appellate Court that they are entitled to an account only from the date of suit. The parties all formed members of a tarwad which owned the suit properties in British India and a number of other properties in the native State of Cochin. The contesting respondent so far as this part of the appeal is concerned is the first defendant. He was the Karnavan of the tarwad so long as it was undivided. The Cochin properties were made the subject of a partition suit in the District Court of Trichur, O.S. No. 63 of 1096 (1920) and Ex. II, dated the 15th November, 1922, is a certified, copy of the judgment in that suit. Ex. I dated the 12th August, 1925, is a certified copy of the judgment in appeal in that suit. The present suit is for partition of the properties in British India. The plaintiffs claime...
In Re: S.N. Vittal Alias Sankar Valvekar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad357; (1942)1MLJ360
Horwill, J.1. For a very long time the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Madras had been watching the activities of the 1st and 2nd accused in connection with what was known as the Aryan Sports Club; and when he thought he had received sufficient information about the doings of these accused and their organization he arranged that a number of police officers should join with him and the present premises of that organization in No. 7, Second Street, Ibrahim Salt Colony, Egmore. Constables who had been stationed at that house from the early morning had seen numbers of people coming and going. When the first police party forcibly entered the house, they met with some resistance, and persons inside attempted to get away by forcing themselves past the police officers. Two persons, the second accused and another who was acquitted in the lower Court, succeeded in escaping; but with the assistance of other police officers all those found inside the house were rounded up and cha...
V. Ramasami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. S.M.A.M. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad478; (1942)1MLJ430
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These four appeals arise out of separate suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. They all raise the same questions; they were heard together and were decided by the Subordinate Judge in one judgment. It will be convenient to adopt the same course here; but we propose to deal with Appeal No. 67 of 1939, in the first instance as our conclusions in that case will govern the decrees to be passed in the other three appeals.2. Appeal No. 67 of 1939, arises out of O.S. No. 193 of 1936, which was instituted on the 2nd December, 1936. The suit was brought by one Arunachalam Chettiar, who died before the hearing. In consequence the executors of his will were substituted as the plaintiffs, but at a later stage the present appellants, the receivers of Arunachalam's estate, were also made plaintiffs, since when they have carried on the litigation. The 'suit was filed to recover Rs. 46,538-6-9, alleged to be due in respect of a sum deposited...
D. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. Subramanya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad397; (1942)1MLJ272
Somayya, J. 1. The defendant appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly passed in A.S. No. 32 of 1939. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the appellant should be restrained by an injunction from collecting the rent of the B Schedule property from the tenants and from interfering with the collection of the same by the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that he was elected the managing trustee by a majority of the trustees of the suit charity and that the defendant has therefore no right to interfere with the management of the managing trustee.2. The first question is whether a majority of the trustees have a right to elect one of them as the managing trustee so as to oust the minority trustees from, taking part in the management. It is true that the trustees acting together can come to arrangement by which they may provide for the management of the trust properties and, provided that the arrangement is in the interests of the institution, it will go...
J.P. Rego Vs. Ananthamathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad472; (1942)1MLJ575
1. The question in this appeal relates to the restitution by the appellant of a sum of Rs. 9,000 with interest to respondents 1 to 3. The sum in question was paid to him in these circumstances. O.S. No. 42 of 1931, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara was a suit to enforce a mortgage executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants in the suit belonged to the same joint family as the first defendant, but relief was sought by the plaintiff against the first defendant alone on the ground that the property mortgaged was the self-acquired property of the first defendant and that he had taken the amount advanced under the mortgage for his own purposes. The contention of the defendants, was that the property was family property and that there was no family necessity for the loan secured by the mortgage of it. The suit was decreed for the plaintiff on 10th August, 1932, and in execution of his decree he brought the property to sale an...
T.S. Sundararamier Vs. Chinnapalani Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad566; (1943)1MLJ351
ORDERHorwill, J.1. On a private complaint, the accused was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of MaduraTaluk under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. In appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Melur, notice went to the complainant, but not to the Grown as was required under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Arguments were heard, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The complainant now approaches this Court in revision to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that the complainant was not given a proper opportunity of appearing by counsel to argue the case for conviction.2. There can be no doubt that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires notice to the Crown. It was not necessary to give notice to the complainant especially as no compensation was awarded to him. The question, h...
China Ana Muthuvayyangar Vs. Thiruvangadammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad395; (1942)1MLJ285
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide whether the second respondent is the adopted son of one G. Srinivasa Aiyangar, who died on the 27th February, 1937. The suit was brought by the appellant as the nearest reversioner to the deceased's estate for a declaration that the second respondent had no interest therein, in other words that he had not been adopted to Srinivasa Aiyangar. The Subordinate Judge held that during the life time of Srinivasa Aiyangar the natural father of the second respondent had agreed to give his son to him in adoption and that Srinivasa Aiyangar took the boy with that intention. Therefore the condition imposed by Hindu law that there should be a giving and a taking had been fulfilled during the life time of the adoptive father. It is common ground that the datta homan ceremony was performed by Srinivasa Aiyangar's widow, the first respondent, on the 10th March, 1937, that is twelve days, after the death of her husband....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »