Chennai Court March 1942 Judgments
ismail Rowther Vs. Gomakkani Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad679; (1942)2MLJ225
King, J.1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether an application made by the appellant on the 19th August, 1938, was made within time. The application was to execute a decree passed in April, 1934, which provided for the payment of Rs. 400 in three annual instalments, the first of which was due on the 10th April, 1935. There was a clause in the decree that if default was committed in the payment of any of these instalments the decree-holder should be at liberty to apply immediately for the recovery of the whole of. the amount due. Accordingly, on the 23rd September, 1935, the decree-holder appellant, as no money had been paid to him in regard to the first instalment, presented an execution application to the Court in which he put forward a claim for the whole of the amount of the decree. This execution application was returned to him for the amendment of certain defects and was never re-presented. The next application is the one now under discussion, presented on the 19th Augu...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kr. St. Kasi Visvanadan Chettiar Vs. Devakottai Municipal Council T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad661; (1942)2MLJ265
Byers, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been brought against the decision of the District Munsiff of Devakottai in Small Cause Suit No. 17 of 1940. That suit was brought to recover profession tax of Rs. 85 paid under protest by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff found that the suit was not maintainable by reason of Section 354 of the Madras District Municipalities Act.2. The facts of the case present no difficulty. The plaintiff admittedly resided in Devakottai for the statutory period of sixty days during the half year in question and it is also admitted that he exercised his business only at Tinnevelly and Madras during this period. When he was served with an order to give his return of income for the purposes of assessment to profession tax, he stated that he had no income or profession liable to profession tax. This was not correct because, unless he had already paid profession tax elsewhere in respect of the income in Madras and Tinnevelly, he would be liable to pay professio...
Tag this Judgment!Allipuram Subbiah Vs. Bojja Venkata Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ101
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the First Class Bench Magistrate's Court of Nellore Town of an offence punishable under Section 504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to a week's simple imprisonment.2. This case is a very good example of the way in which Section 504, Indian Penal Code, is misused. The offence contemplated in Section 504 is a serious one, as is indicated by the fact that it is made punishable with a term of two years' rigorous imprisonment. It is obviously intended to deal with persons who are as responsible for breaches of peace or the commission of offences as those who openly abet or incite them. Despite this, Section 504, Indian Penal Code is being constantly used by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction and by the lower Magistracy to express their disapproval by the imposition of a fine of the use of bad language. I have never seen in the numerous cases that have come before me any sentence more serious than a fine of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Dommarapati Pedda Venkatappa and anr. Vs. Marupuri Latchanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad653; (1942)2MLJ103
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were accused of an offence punishable under Section 326, I.P.C., but they were discharged by the Joint Magistrate of Madanapalli before whom the case came up for trial. In revision, the District Magistrate of Chittoor set aside the order of discharge saying that 'the evidence on record was sufficient to justify the framing of a charge. In view of it, I set aside the lower Court's order of discharge and direct further inquiry into the case.' The petitioners have brought the matter before this Court in revision on the ground that the Magistrate's order is irregular, if not illegal, and ought to be set aside on the ground that no reasons are given.2. Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs references and revisions, says nothing about the giving of reasons for any order passed. As in many places in the Code it is required of a Magistrate or Judge that reasons should be given for the order passed, it must be taken that the Legislatur...
Tag this Judgment!Sait Parasuram Byas Vs. the Sub-collector, Rajahmundry and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ218
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises an, interesting question with regard to the market price of certain land in the town of Rajahmundry acquired by the Government in proceedings instituted under the Land Acquisition Act. When the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on the 25th January, 1937, the appellant and the second respondent appeared as claimants to the land. The question of the respective interests of the appellant and the second respondent has not yet been decided, but the appeal can proceed on the footing that the appellant is entitled to the amount awarded in the proceedings. The District Judge of Bast Godavari has found that on the date of acquisition the market value of the land which measured 11,541 square feet was Rs. 1,676-13-0, to which was to be added the solatium of 15 per cent. A lease of the land for a term of 99 years was granted to Arbuthnot and Company by the Bast India Company on the 4th July, 1848 and therefore the term expires o...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Bai Ammal, Zamindarini of Melmandai Vs. N. Chinniah Nadar (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad367; (1943)1MLJ88
Somayya, J.1. This is a batch of Second Appeals in which the same questions arise for determination. In all the suits the ryots of the estate of Melmandai Zamindari in Tinnevelly District were the plaintiffs and the defendant was the Zamindarini. In each suit the plaintiff-ryot objected to the sale of his holding. The proprietrix (landholder) was attempting to bring them to sale under Section 111 of the Estates Land Act and the suits were filed under Section 112 for a declaration that they are not saleable under Section 111. The chief question is whether the amounts for which the holdings of the plaintiffs in the various suits were sought to be brought to sale come within the definition of the word ' rent' as defined under the Estates Land Act. Under Section 111 where an arrear is not paid within the revenue year in which it accrued due, it shall be lawful for the landholder to sell the holding or any part thereof in the manner thereinafter provided, in satisfaction of the arrear and o...
Tag this Judgment!Saith Parasuram Byas Vs. Sub-collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad596
1. This appeal raises an interesting question with regard to the market price of certain land in the town of Rajahmundry acquired by the Government in proceedings instituted under the Land Acquisition Act. When the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 25th January 1937, the appellant and respondent 2 appeared as claimants to the land. The question of the respective interests of the appellant and respondent 2 has not yet been decided, but the appeal can proeeed on the footing that the appellant is entitled to the amount awarded in the proceedings, The Distuiet Judge of East Godavari has found that on the date of acquisition the market value of the land which measured 11541 square feet was Rs. 1676-13-0, to which was to be added the solatium of 15 per cent. A lease of the land for a term of 99 years was granted to Arbuthnot and Co., by the East India Co., on 4th July 1848 and therefore the term expires on 3rd July 1947. The appellant claims to be the successor in title o...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M.N. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. the Government of Madras, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad704; (1942)2MLJ193
King, J.1. The appellant was the owner of certain silk goods seized by the Customs authorities at a place near Madura on 16th October, 1935. These goods were suspected by the Customs authorities to be smuggled and an inquiry was held by the Inspector of Customs, Negapatam, at which it is conceded that the appellant was heard and was represented by the advocates of the Tanjore Bar and that no facility was refused him to put forward whatever evidence he had to adduce or arguments he wished to present to the Court in support of his case. The records of the case were sent to the Collector of Customs and Salt Reveune who passed an order in January, 1936, confiscating the goods which had been seized, holding that they had been smuggled. This order was passed without any further hearing being afforded to the appellant. The appellant thereupon applied under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act to the Central Board of Reveune which on the 5th May, 1936, held on revision that the order of the Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Akkammal Vs. Komarasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad36; (1942)2MLJ315
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The decision in this appeal turns on the answer to be given to a question of law, but in order to understand the question it is necessary to set out the facts, which are of a complicated nature.2. On the 2nd July, 1925, one Krishna Aiyar sold to his brother Venkatachalapathi Aiyar a house in Dindigul town. Some eight months later Venkatachalapathi Aiyar executed a deed purporting to release his ownership of the property in favour of his brother Krishna Aiyar. The reason for this transaction is apparent. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar was in financial difficulties and he wanted to prevent the property falling into the hands of his creditors. In the course of the year he was adjudicated an insolvent and it is not a matter for surprise that the Official Receiver thought fit to take steps to obtain an order of the Court setting aside the deed under which Venkatachalapathi Aiyar purported to revest the title in his brother. On the 10th July, 1930, the Insolvency C...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Sobhanadri Apparao Bahadur Garu Vs. Uppala Appanna Sastri Ali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad29; (1942)2MLJ340
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the charge created by Section 5 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, continues to operate in respect of the arrears of rent which have accrued due between the date of the landholder's suit and the sale of the property when it has been sold in execution of a decree for rent. Admittedly since the amendment of Section 125 of the Act in 1934 the charge does not continue, but this appeal is concerned with a position which arose before the Act was amended and the appellant says that then the charge was a continuing one.2. The appellant is a zamindar in the Kistna District. One Gangulu held a patta granted by the appellant, but fell in arrears with his rent. The consequence was that the appellant instituted in the Revenue Court S.S. No. 373 of 1922 to recover what was due to him. He obtained a decree and in execution proceedings (E.P. No. 381 of 1925) he caused 3.56 acres of the holding to be sold. The sale took place o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »