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.
P.V. Sreekanta Goundan Vs. M. Javani Alias Vella Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad406; (1942)1MLJ386
King, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor in regard to certain property which originally admittedly belonged to him and was delivered in execution of a decree against him to the respondent. After the sale, the 2nd respondent obtained delivery of 19.71 acres of land. According to the appellant, the property actually sold measured only 14.60 acres and therefore he claimed re-delivery of the excess 5.11 acres. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Calicut dismissed the appellant's application for se-delivery of this property and the appellant has accordingly appealed.2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the 2nd respondent that no appeal lies. The argument was that a matter of this kind which is in dispute between a judgment-debtor and a stranger auction-purchaser does not fall within Section 47 and therefore the decision of such a matter is one not open to appeal. That such a dispute does not fall within Section 47 is said to follow from the recent Full Bench deci...
Minor Nataraja Dikshithar by Next Friend and Mother Pattammal Vs. Maha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad517; (1942)1MLJ522
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house. The basis of the plaintiff's claim is that on the 6th December, 1928, the mother of the defendants during their minority executed a usufructuary mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 1,500 in favour of the plaintiff's father and uncle and on the same day executed a registered deed of lease agreeing to occupy the house for a period of three years on a certain rent and that as the defendants committed default in the payment of rent, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession. So far as the plaintiff's title is concerned, his case is that at a partition between him and his uncle after the death of his father the suit mortgage was assigned to his share. The main defence of both the defendants is that the mortgage is not binding on them. On behalf of the second defendant a special plea is raised that even though the mortgage is binding on the first defendant it is not for a necessary pur...
In Re: Mooka Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad590; (1943)1MLJ352
Horwill, J.1. The five appellants were found by the Sessions Judge of Madura to have been members of an unlawful assembly who went to the field of the deceased person and took possession from him. The first three accused were convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, for rioting armed with deadly weapons and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The other two appellants were found guilty under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The first accused was also found guilty under Section 324, Indian Penal Code for the specific injury caused by him and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. It cannot be denied that the party of the appellants and the party of his opponents met on the field, the possession of which is in dispute, and that they attacked one another and inflicted injuries on several persons present. The principal question in dispute is whether the deceased, who was in the party of the appellants, was in p...
T.K. Sambanda Chetty Vs. Muthu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad398; (1942)1MLJ335
Horwill, J.1. When C.M.P. No. 7194 of 1941 was posted for disposal I found it easier to hear the civil revision petition and dispose of that than to pass suitable orders on the interlocutory applications pending disposal of the civil revision petition at some future date. I have therefore heard arguments in the main application, C.R.P. No. 2685 of 1941.2. The petitioner put in an application under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938, asking the Court to stay execution as he was desirous of filing an application under Section 19 of the Act to scale down the decree. The learned Munsif said that the petitioner had ample opportunities in a prior application to make such a request and that he must be considered to have waived his rights. He therefore dismissed the petitioner's application. The Act does not however compel a judgment-debtor to make an application at an early stage and so he cannot be deemed to have waived his rights because he did not do so. He can make his application at any...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Madathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ224
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The evidence in this case discloses that the deceased girl, who was about 16 or 17 years of age, had been talking to a cousin of hers in the village on several occasions and that on that account people had been gossiping about her. The third accused told the first accused, the mother of the girl, about this: and she became very incensed with her daughter and took away her jewels, which made the girl sulky and disobedient. The same night she and another daughter, the second accused, dragged the girl towards an empty house with the intention of shutting her up there for the night. When the girl resisted, the first accused took up a heavy piece of wood and struck the deceased a blow on the head which caused the girl to fall to the ground at once. The first accused exclaimed that her daughter was dead. Just then, the third accused, who is the husband of the second accused, came in. Upon hearing what had happened, he advised the other two accused to hang the girl up to a ...
Pattan Ahmed Khan Vs. Pyda Venkatachelamayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad511; (1942)1MLJ278
Burn, J. 1. This is an application to revise the decision of 'the learned District Judge of Nellore in C.M.A. No. 53 of 1940. The learned District Judge was disposing of an appeal from an order passed by the learned District Munsif of Kavali granting an application for review. The applicant before the District Munsif was the first defendant in O.S. No. 211 of 1931. That suit was decreed on 23rd December, 1935 and steps were taken in execution and in 1938 shortly before the hypotheca was to be sold the first defendant applied for review of judgment. He alleged that he had discovered a receipt dated the 9th November, 1928 for Rs. 450. He said that he had been unable to discover this in time to produce it alt the trial and he has therefore prayed for review of judgment in order that this additional evidence might be admitted and taken into consideration. The learned. District,, Munsif had to deal with three applications. One was an application for leave to file a petition for review in fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›