Chennai Court February 1942 Judgments
S.T.K.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Nalla Sevugam Servai Alias N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad13; (1942)2MLJ337
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only point which I have been invited to decide in this revision is one of limitation. The plaintiffs dealt in cinder while the defendant had a brick kiln of his own. Dealings started between them in 1927. They consisted in the purchase of cinder. The defendant borrowed cash as well from the plaintiffs occasionally. The last three items which are debited in the plaintiffs' accounts to the defendant are:1. Rs. 120 on the 28th July, 1936 for price of 20 carts, of cinder;2. Rs. 20 on the 27th February, 1937 for money advanced in cash; and3. Rs. 115-8-0 on the 20th July, 1938 for the price of 21 carts of cinder.2. The plaintiffs were in need of money, it seems for purchasing some bulls and made a demand from the defendant on the 3rd March, 1938 for payment. Instead of paying cash in or towards the discharge of his account,, the defendant sold two bulls to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 220. Bricks to the value of Rs. 19-10-0 had been sold by the defendant to the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjunda Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. Venkatappa, Minor, Represented by M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad758; (1942)2MLJ500
Happell, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant as plaintiff to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour by the deceased father of the 1st defendant and the brother of the 2nd defendant as manager of a joint family. The mortgage-deed, Ex. A, was executed on the 18th March, 1927. The money advanced under the security of the mortgage was Rs. 1,000 and it was advanced to enable the mortgagor to pay the balance of Rs. 1,000 due in respect of a sale-deed, Ex. B, dated 9th February, 1927, which was registered on 6th April, 1927. Both the lower Courts held that the mortgage-deed was not executed for necessity, and this means that the mortgage is not binding on the half share of the 2nd defendant. Since this finding has not been challenged in appeal, the mortgage will not be binding on the share of the 1st defendant also unless it is proved that the debt to pay which the mortgage money was advanced was an antecedent debt. The question of antecedence was not...
Tag this Judgment!P. Varadarajulu Chetty Vs. Janakirama Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad552; (1942)1MLJ527
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The day after the charge was framed the complainant was absent. The Magistrate thereupon passed an order purporting to be under Section 258(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code acquitting the accused.2. Where a Magistrate has framed a charge, he cannot dismiss the ease for default. The only section which deals with the procedure upon default of appearance of the complainant in warrant cases is Section 259, which authorises the Magistrate in his discretion to discharge the accused at any time before the charge is framed if the complainant fails to appear. The Magistrate could not have acted under that section because the charge had already been framed; and there can be no discharge after the charge has been framed.3. The Magistrate therefore acted illegally. His order of acquittal is therefore set aside and he is ordered to continue the trial from the point at which it was when he passed the order of acquittal....
Tag this Judgment!Edara Venkata Rao Vs. Edara Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad38; (1942)2MLJ427
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a suit for contribution by one brother against another which was dismissed by the Additional District Munsift' of Ellore whose decree was confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Ellore in appeal. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal in the High Court and the first point which requires decision is whether there is any right of appeal under Section 100 in the circumstances of the case.2. A great deal of the controversy in the Courts below centered round the date at which two parts of a particular book were published. The two brothers who had been publishing books as a firm entered into a partition on 15th April, 1928, and one of the terms of that partition was to throw upon both of them any losses or difficulties which should result from any of their business carried on prior to the 22nd of March. If therefore the books in question were published after the 22nd March, this clause will not relate to them and plaintiff's case must necessarily fail. Pla...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Naicker Vs. Alagirisami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad581; (1942)1MLJ532
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit in which a preliminary decree was passed in June, 1933. It provided for the payment of the mortgage money in seven annual instalments of Rs. 115 each in June of each year; and also that if there were default in the payment of any instalment the decree-holder might then proceed to sell the mortgaged property for the whole of the amount of the instalments still remaining unpaid, and also for the sum of Rs. 262, which he had provisionally relinquished. No instalment was in fact paid in either 1934. 1935. 1936 or 1937. On 22nd June, 1938, before the 1938 instalment had become due, the decree-holder applied for a final decree, conceding, however that though the first instalment had not been paid, he could not claim it as still due. The judgment-debtor contended that the application was barred by limitation. This view was accepted by the learned District Munsif of Koilpatti, but on appeal a final decree was granted by the learned Sub-Judge...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkata Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad550; (1942)1MLJ595
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The prosecution case, which was accepted by the Joint Magistrate, is that three accused went to the house of P.W. 1 and attacked him. The second accused struck him on the mouth with a stone, knocking out six teeth and cutting his upper. lip right through. The first accused struck P.W. 1 with a stick. while the third accused caught hold of his hair and punched him. On this evidence the Joint Magistrate convicted the first and third accused under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and the second accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced the first and the third accused to a fine of Rs. 10 and the second accused to Rs. 25. The District Magistrate has referred the matter to this Court because the sentence imposed on the second accused is not a legal one.2. I find no reason to think that the prosecution story is not true. If the second accused threw a stone at the face of P.W. 1 with a force sufficient to cut his upper lip and knock out six teeth, he must be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri La Sri Subramania Pandarasannadhi, the Managing Trustee of Sri Ved ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad104; (1942)2MLJ403
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 65-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, the Government of Madras, by a notification, dated the 9th August, 1939, directed that the Sri Subramanyaswami temple, Ettugudi, which is in the Tanjore District, and the endowments belonging thereto should be subject to the provisions of Ch. VI-A of the Act. This notification meant that the management of the temple was to be taken out of the hands of the appellant, who was the managing trustee, and placed in the hands of an executive officer appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board.2. In Appeals Nos. 222 and 241 of 1920 this Court settled a scheme for the management of the temple. The appeals arose out of O.S. No. 7 of 1913 of the Court of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. On the 30th August, 1939, the appellant filed on the Original Side of this Court the suit which has given rise to the present appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Mudaliar and anr. Vs. M. Natarajan Alias Amalorpavanathan and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad503; (1942)1MLJ528
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the English doctrine of advancement applies to Indian Christians. The rule does not apply to Hindus or Mohammadans. See Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungapersaud Gosain (1854) 6 M.I.A. 53 Sum Lakshmiah Chetty v. Kothandarama Pillai (1925) 49 M.L.J. 109 : L.R 52 IndAp 286 : I.L.R. Mad. 605 Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Banjit Singh (1915) 29 M.L.J. 335 : L.R 42 IndAp 202 : I.L.R.. 37 All. 557 and Maulvie Sayyud Uzhur Ali v. Mst. Bebee Ultaf Fatima (1869) 13 M.I.A. 232. In Maung Tun Pe v. V. K. Haider I.L.R. (1936) Bang. 242 a Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court held that it did not apply to Burmese Buddhists. In Kerwick v. Kerwick (1920) 39 M.L.J. 296 : L.R 47 IndAp 275 : I.L.R. 48 Cal. 260 the Privy Council held that the presumption of an advancement does apply to persons who are born in India of English parents and have resided in India all their lives, except for occasional visits to England. . Admittedly t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri C.S. Venkatachariar, First Grade Pleader and Sri R. Sivaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad691; (1942)2MLJ479
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This case presents some unusual features. The Court is called upon in the first place to consider whether the respondent, Mr. C. S. Venkatachariar, a pleader practising in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram, has been guilty of professional misconduct. In the second place, it is called upon to decide whether the person who lodged the complaint against him, Mr. R. Sivaramakrishna Deekshathar, another pleader practising in that Court, is also guilty of professional misconduct. Charges were framed by the District Munsiff of Chidambaram, against both the respondent and the complainant. The District Munsiff has presented a report to the effect that the respondent is not guilty of the charges framed against him, but that the complainant is. This report is concurred in by the District Judge of South Arcot. The District Munsiff considered that the conduct of the complainant had been such as to warrant the cancellation of his sanad. The District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Pothukuchi Venkata Ramanayya and ors. Vs. Daggubati Mallikharjanudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad533; (1942)1MLJ571
Wadsworth, J.1. The defendants appeal against a preliminary decree on a mortgage. The mortgage was, dated 6th October, 1933, and provided for compound interest at 9 per cent. It was contended in the lower Court that the defendants were agriculturists. The lower Court has found that they are excluded by the operation of proviso C to Section 3 (2) of Act IV of 1938.2. The facts are that for the half-year ending 31st March, 1936, they paid property tax on an annual rental value of Rs. 613, for the half-year ending 1st October, 1936, and for the half-year ending 31st March, 1937, on a rental value of Rs. 300, and for the half-year ending 30th September, 1937, on a rental value of Rs. 367. It was contended in the lower Court, firstly, that in order to come within the purview of proviso C, property tax on a rental value of not less than Rs. 600, must have been imposed throughout the period of two years specified in the proviso. This seems to us to be against the plain language of the proviso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »