Chennai Court December 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: Thangapandian Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad280; (1943)1MLJ59
Byers, J.1. The four petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Nanguneri of offences punishable under Sections 447, 353 and 225 B of the Indian Penal Code for the part they are alleged to have taken in rescuing from lawful custody a deserter from the army who had been recently arrested by the local station house officer. They were also convicted of rioting but this conviction was set aside on appeal by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate when he confirmed the convictions and sentences under the other three sections.2. There are two points taken in revision. The first of them is that the procedure indicated by Section 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not properly observed, because it eventually came out in cross-examination that the Head Constable who effected the arrest had not got with him the authority on which he relied for making the arrest. The second point is that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not considered the evidence regarding the offen...
Chakka China Sattiraju Vs. Ajjarapu Virayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1942
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ149
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge erred in setting aside the sale in favour of the appellant. On the 2nd October, 1934, the decree-holder (the third respondent) applied for the execution of her decree and on the 5th February, 1936, the property belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold. Within the time allowed by law the mortgagee of the property sold deposited the decretal amount, plus the solatium, and on the 17th March, 1936, the sale was set aside. The decree was for the payment of Rs. 300 per annum for the maintenance of the decree-holder. This sum was payable in two instalments, the first instalment on the 1st April and the second instalment on the 1st October in each year. On the 1st October, 1936, the decree-holder filed an application for the execution of her decree in respect of the instalments which fell due on the 1st April, 1935, 1st October, 1935, 1st April, 1936 and 1st October, 1936. The application was not in order and was returned to the decree-...
Avvari Subba Row and ors. Vs. Kondamudi Varadaiah (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad482; (1943)1MLJ279
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. The appellants who were defendants in the Court below purchased certain immovable properties from the respondents (plaintiffs) for Rs. 11,000 on 10th August, 1934. Some of the properties had been mortgaged to one Venkatappayya to whom a sum of Rs. 5,682-7-0 was found to be payable for principal and interest on the date of the sale. This sum was left in the hands of the appellants for payment to the mortgagee and the balance of the purchase money was adjusted towards the debts due from the vendors to the appellants. The appellants, however, did not pay off the mortgage debt as provided in the sale deed. The Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act having been passed in March, 1938, the respondents who are agriculturists within the meaning of that Act issued a notice to the appellants in April, 1938, requiring them not to pay the amount reserved in their hands to the mortgagee, but to pay it with interest as provided in the mortgage bond to the respondents themselves in ...
In Re: M. Seshagupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad376; (1943)1MLJ22
ORDERByers, J.1. As the price of copra has not been controlled by the Government under Rule 81 (b) of the Defence of India Rules, the conviction of the accused in Calendar Case No. 56 of 1942 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoni, for an offence under Rule 81 (4) for selling copra at a price exceeding that fixed by the local Prices Advisory Committee is illegal. The reference made by the learned District Magistrate is accepted, the conviction is set aside and the accused acquitted. The fine is ordered to be refunded....
Fatima Bibi and anr. Vs. A. Hajee Muhammad Usman Sahib (Died)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad425; (1943)1MLJ212
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether a suit filed by a decree-holder under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, to declare his right to attach certain property arrests the running of limitation in favour of a person in adverse possession of the property.2. The parties are Mohammadans and are relations. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput by A. Abdul Gaffoor, who died during its pendency. Thereupon his widow, Fatima Bibi, and his daughter, Bathla Bibi, continued the suit as his legal representatives. The first defendant is the brother of the deceased plaintiff and the second defendant is his sister. The second defendant is the widow of one Dastagiri Sahib, who died in the month of February, 1920. Dastagiri was also survived by a son Mohamed Ghouse, and a daughter, Mahaboobi. On the 27th November, 1933, A. Abdul Gafoor obtained a decree against the estate...
Abdul Nabi Sahib Vs. Bajan Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Mad221
Kunhi Raman, J.1. An interesting question of law arises for decision in this second appeal. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the performance of the religious services which are referred to in the plaint. It is conceded by the parties that the property which is the subject-matter of the litigation was originally granted by the Nawab of the Carnatic to one Nirgum Bi, the mother of the plaintiff Roshan Bi. The service to be performed by the inamdar was connected with the celebration of the mohurrum every year. Nirgum Bi executed a document, Ex. l, on 25th October 1873. This is described as 'guardian and dharmakartha kararnama' and it was executed in favour of Nirgum Bi's son-in-law Dastagir. The recitals in this document are that Dastagir is the only senior male member connected with the family who can be relied upon to manage th...
S. Syeda Mahomed Rowther Vs. A. Shanmugasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad343; (1943)1MLJ188
Happell, J.1. The appellant leased a house from the respondent, and at any rate for a part of each year he used the house as a place of business for the storage and sale of fire works. The house was completely destroyed by fire following on an explosion, and on a suit brought for the recovery of damages by the lessor the lower Courts have awarded him damages to the amount of Rs. 1,000.2. The principal argument advanced in appeal is that the lower Courts wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellant. It may be conceded that as a general rule the burden of proof in an action for damages for negligence rests primarily upon the plaintiff. But there are exceptions to this rule; such as cases to which the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies, cases in which the fact of an accident is itself prima facie evidence of negligence, and in which there is a duty cast on the defendant to take special care. A duty to take a special care is cast on the defendant when the things which he keeps are part...
M.C.T.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad365; (1943)1MLJ123
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The facts of this case disclose a ground for a feeling of grievance by the appellant; but the Court is not able to allow the appeal.2. On the 13th August, 1942, Bell, J., ordered that the assets of the Madras Chemical Industries, Limited, which was in the process of being wound up under an order of this Court should be sold by tender. The intention was to sell the business as a going concern. In pursuance of this order the Official Receiver caused an advertisement to be published in the newspapers inviting tenders for the purchase of the business. The advertisement directed that the tenders should be sent to him by registered post so as to reach him on or before the 31st October, 1942. It was not stated that the highest tender would be accepted and there was no reserve price fixed, but a person submitting a tender could reasonably expect it to be accepted if his bid proved to be the highest and the sum offered was adequate.3. The Official Receiver open...
In Re: Nagulatiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad283; (1943)1MLJ130
ORDERByers, J.1. The petitioner is the driver of a motor bus who has been convicted under Section 123(1) read with Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving his bus with nine and a half passengers in excess of the number specified in the permit for the vehicle. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate and in appeal the conviction was confirmed but the fine was reduced to Rs. 25. The only point taken in revision is that the conviction is illegal because Section 123 (1) has no application and because it is no part of the driver's duty to prevent the vehicle being used in excess of its specified seating capacity. This duty, it is contended, has been cast on the conductor under Rule 218 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is admitted that there was a conductor on the vehicle at. the time but the learned Public Prosecutor supports the conviction on the ground that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›