Chennai Court July 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.
Thirumalareddi Inna Reddi and anr. Vs. Gade Gopireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad311; (1943)1MLJ43
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants in both these appeals are the defendants and the two appeals arise out of two suits in ejectment and for possession of the suit lands, filed by the trustees of the Venugopalaswami temple at Rentachintala. That the defendants are tenants holding the lands was not disputed but their case was that the temple had only the melwaram interest in the lands and that they had permanent rights of occupancy, that they were in occupation from time immemorial, that their predecessors alienated the lands and made improvements, that they have been paying a uniform rate of rent, Rs. 10, in one case and Rs. 15 in another, which was not in keeping with the current rate of rent and that the plaintiffs had no right to eject them. The first Court found that the temple had only the melwaram interest and that the defendants had permanent rights of occupancy and dismissed the suits. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the temple was entitled to both the waram...
Palani Mudali Vs. Athiappa Goundan Alias Peria Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad160; (1942)2MLJ599
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the 1st defendant in a suit on a mortgage. The other defendants were his, sons. The trial Court gave a decree against the 1st defendant and against the family properties in the hands of the sons to a certain extent. This decree was passed in 1931. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the disallowance of a portion of, his claim as against the sons. The 1st defendant against whom the decree had been passed in full was not given notice of this appeal and he did not himself question the decree. That appeal was allowed and a second appeal was preferred to this Court by one of the sons. In that appeal also no notice was taken to the 1st defendant the decree against whom was not in question. The second appeal was pending when Act IV of 1938 came into force and judgment was delivered on the 19th October, 1938. Since that judgment has been delivered a final decree in accordance with the terms of the preliminary decree as amended in second appeal ha...
The Egmore Benefit Society, 3rd Branch, Limited, by Its Secretary and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad301; (1943)1MLJ92
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the Egmore Benefit Society for the recovery of possession and mesne profits of the property described in the schedule to the plaint on foot of a purchase made by the Society in a sale held by them under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act; in the alternative, if the sale is held to be illegal or void for any reason, the suit is for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 (husband and wife) by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The mortgage deed is dated 7th January, 1937, and is for a sum of Rs. 4,350 with interest at 6 1/4 per cent. per annum and there is provision that in default of payment of arrears of subscription and interest, the arrears were to carry interest at 2 pies per rupee per month, which works out at 12 1/2 per cent. per annum. The deed provides for the exercise by the mortgagors of the power of sale provided in the Transfer of Property Act and there is a clause authorising the Socie...
In Re: Varadaraja Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad521
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mayavaram, of an offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380, Penal Code, and was released under Section 562, Criminal P.C, upon his executing a bond. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore affirmed the conviction but referred the case to this Court as to the sentence, because the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate was an illegal one. If Section 562 is to be applied to persons over 21 years of age, it must be only in relation to offences that are punishable with sentences not exceeding seven years, whereas an offence punishable under Section 454, Penal Code, is punishable with ten years' rigorous imprisonment. I do not think this revision case should be regarded as one for enhancement of the sentence, entitling the accused to agitate findings of fact; but even if it were, I should have no hesitation in agreeing with the findings of the Courts below, for the accused was found in possession...
In Re: R. Padmanabha Chetty, Perumal and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad47; (1942)2MLJ285
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate of selling adulterated butter and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 5, Clause (1)(a) and (b) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, read with Rules 28 and 29 under the same Act. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.2. The prosecution case rests entirely on the evidence of the Corporation Analyst, with the figures that he gave for certain tests carried out by him and more important still, the inferences which he drew from the figures obtained. The accused examined on his side a gentleman who has had some experience of analytical work under the Bombay Government; and fortunately the figures that he obtained upon analysis were very much the same as those given by the Government Analyst in so far as the tests conducted by these two gentlemen were the same. The Government Analyst conducted four tests. He estimated the Beichert Wollny value, the Befractive Index, and the ...
Dasi Parvathi Ammal Vs. Dasi Angamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad730; (1942)2MLJ518
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and she filed a suit as assignee of a mortgage-deed executed to Konavaikalpalayam Gopala Gokula Virdhi Nidhi, Ltd., for recovery of money due under it. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 alone contested the suit. The others were ex parte. Their case was that the suit mortgage was not supported by consideration. Both the Courts held that the document was not supported by consideration and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal.2. The decision as to whether the document was supported by consideration or not is a question of fact, and I do not feel justified in interfering with a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts on a point like this. It is urged, however, that the learned District Judge committed an error when he sought to draw an inference with regard to the passing of consideration from an endorsement of payment on the mortgage-deed, Ex. I, made in 1934. But I do not think I will be justified in brushing aside the ...
G. Sreenivasa Chettiar by Power of Attorney Agent, Sundar Rajulu Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad268; (1943)1MLJ47
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff who is the landholder of the village of Nedungal in the Salem district against the decree of the District judge of Salem in so far as it refused to the plaintiff landholder certain reliefs. The defendants are the ryots holding certain lands in this village which are classified as dry. There is a channel marked A-B-C in the-plaint sketch which is a feeder channel to the Nedungal tank and it branches from the river South Pennar. Both the tank and the channel are sources of irrigation to the ayacut nanja lands, i.e., the wet lands in the village. The defendants who are the owners of certain dry lands in the village claim to take water from the channel by means of certain baling stands shown in the plaint sketch. They are also mentioned as 1 to 5 in the Commissioner's sketch. The plaintiff as the proprietor of the village claimed a right to regulate the supply of water from the village tank and the supply channel which are both sou...
Ghulam Asadullah Khan and ors. Vs. Mohamed Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad360; (1943)1MLJ131
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. This is a quia timet action by eight plaintiffs against three defendants, all of whom are the heirs and legal representatives of a gentleman called Madhi Hussain Khan, who died on 26th July, 1932, leaving a will under which he appointed the first plaintiff as the sole executor. The first four plaintiffs are the sons and plaintiffs 5 to 8 are the daughters of Madhi Hussain Khan. Defendants 1 and 2 arc his sons and the 3rd defendant is his widow. The first plaintiff obtained probate of his father's will. On 10th July, 1933, he mortgaged a part of the estate, namely, houses bearing Nos. 50, 51, 51-A, 52 and 53, Peters Road, Royapettah, with the Egmore Benefit Society for a sum of Rs. 30,000 and paid off some debts due by the cstate. This mortgage in favour of the Society contained a power of sale under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Subsequently all the heirs entered into an agreement about the distribution of the estate and the discharge of their l...
R.S. Naidu Vs. Auditor and Examiner of Local Fund Accounts
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad97; (1942)2MLJ538
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Madura in a petition presented under rule 61 of schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act IV of 1920. The prayer in the petition before the lower Court was to set aside a surcharge order made by the Auditor and Examiner of Local Fund Accounts against the appellant who was the chairman of the Madura Municipality from the 2nd July, 1923 to the 10th December, 1930. The surcharge certificate mentions that the Municipality had sustained a loss as the result of negligence on the part of the appellant in the following circumstances. For the years 1929-30 and 1930-31, the Municipal sewage farm in Madura was leased out for cultivation to the highest bidders at an auction conducted by the petitioner. As required by the rules, the successful bidders signed unstamped muchilikas as soon as their bids were accepted. According to Section 69 of the District Municipalities Act, it was necessary that subsequently fo...
The Malabar District Board Vs. the CochIn Malabar Estates, Limited, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad107; (1942)2MLJ722
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two revision petitions raise the same question of law and have been heard together. In C.R.P. No. 1696 of 1939, the Court has to decide whether the Malabar District Board, Calicut, is entitled to impose the profession tax on the Cochin Malabar Estates, Limited, a limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act and in C.R.P. No. 1697 of 1939, whether it is entitled to impose the tax on the Kerala Calicut Rubber Estates, Limited, a limited liability company registered in England. Both these companies possess rubber estates within the jurisdiction of the Malabar District Board. The office of the Cochin Malabar Estates, Limited, is situate in Calicut and there all contracts with regard to the sale of the company's rubber are entered into. The managing agents of the company are Pierce Leslie and Company, Limited, whose office also is in Calicut. Pierce Leslie and Company are also the managing agents of the Kerala Calicut Rubber Est...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »