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.
V. Swarnam Aiyar Vs. Veeragu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad286; (1943)1MLJ41
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note. He took various contentions of which the most substantial were a plea of limitation and a plea that he was entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The plea of limitation failed rightly, being based on a misunderstanding of the effect of a Privy Council ruling. It seems to me quite clear that the last endorsement, dated 10th July, 1937, is an acknowledgment saving limitation and made on the date which it bears.2. The plea under Act IV of 1938 also did not find favour with the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff in his plaint asserted that the defendant was not an agriculturist but did not set up any specific exclusion from the category of agriculturists under the provisos to Section 3 of Act IV of 1938. The written statement alleged that the defendant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act, but did not plead how precisely the defendant was qualified as an agriculturist. The writte...
O.A. Narayanaswami Ayyar Vs. S.A. Narayana Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad288; (1943)1MLJ114
1. These two appeals have been filed against the orders of the District judge of West Tanjore dismissing two execution petitions in both of which the receiver appointed in E. P. No. 82 of 1934 was the petitioner. In O.S. No. 26 of 1912 which was an interpleader suit on the file of the Sub-Court, Tanjore, instituted to determine the rights of the several claimants to the Tanjore Palace estate, the first defendant, the senior prince, obtained a decree for a one-eighth share and his younger brother, the second defendant, for another one-eighth share. The balance of the estate, namely, three-fourths was decreed to the illegitimate sons of the late Maharajah, compendiously referred to as the Mangalavilas group. There were appeals preferred to this Court against the decision of the Sub-Court, Tanjore. The result was that the shares of defendants 1 and 2 were enhanced from one-eighth to two-sevenths and the shares of the Mangalavilas group, were correspondingly reduced. These latter consisted...
Chevveti Ramudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ312
Mockett, J.1. I entirely agree with the conclusion at which my learned brother has arrived with regard to the correctness of the conviction and the sentence in this case and I do not intend to add anything to what he has said with regard to the conviction. I, however, desire to express my explicit agreement with the observations that he has made on the subject of the sentence in this case. There is no doubt whatever that the authorities on the subject are abundant that the normal sentence for conviction for murder is that of death. Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it clear in Sub-clause (5) that if the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death and the Court sentences him to a punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reasons why the sentence of death was not passed. What reason could the learned trial Judge give in this case? The facts were that two young men committed a cold-blooded and atrocious murder of a young child for t...
In Re: Sri K.R.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ196
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. Three charges of professional misconduct were framed against the respondent who is a pleader practising in the Trichinopoly District. The first two charges were to the effect that he financed litigation in which he had appeared in his professional capacity. The third charge was that he had filed a false fees certificate. It is obvious that there is no foundation for the third charge and no further reference to it is necessary.2. The respondent filed a suit on behalf of a childless widow, one Mahamu Animal, for declaration of her title to certain properties and for partition. The petitioner in this case was the defendant, and there can be no doubt that in instituting these proceedings against the respondent he has been actuated by malice. After the institution of the suit the respondent advanced to his client the sum of Rs. 300 on a promissory note. Out of this money the client paid to the respondent Rs. 200 for the expenses of the suit. More monies we...
C. Velayudha Mudali Vs. T. Chengama Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad727; (1942)2MLJ311
1. It seems to us clear that proceedings under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure are proceedings in execution which must necessarily be stayed when an order under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 has been passed, until the disposal of a pending application under Section 19. The fact that a sale held before 1st October, 1937, cannot be set aside under Madras Act IV of 1938 does not justify the Court in going on with proceedings relating to such a sale, when all execution proceedings have been stayed. In such circumstances the order passed under Order 21, Rule 90 is an illegal order and it must be set aside. The lower Court will be directed to dispose of the application under Section 19 at once and thereafter to hold a fresh enquiry into the petition under Order 21, Rule 90. The appellant is entitled to costs in this appeal, payable by the decree-holder....
Chelliah Alias Kariamanickam Vs. Rengaswami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ624
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration is whether the suit land is an inam land granted for service in a temple and as such not alienable. The appellant is the defendant and the appeal arises out of a suit for enforcing a mortgage deed executed by his father in respect of the plaint mentioned property. The appellant's case was that the land was given to one of his ancestors as a service inam for rendering service in the Vishnu, Siva and Pillayar temples, the service being Vyravi service, that is to say purchasing articles, etc., for the use of the temples and cooking pongal in the Pillayar temple. The appellant examined himself and a cousin of his who is also enjoying another portion of the land rendering similar service. Ex. I an old cadjan document was filed as evidencing the grant. The first Court presumed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act the document to be a genuine document as an ancient document of 1852, and the evidence of the witnesses showed that th...
Vijiyalakshmi Ammal Vs. Rangachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad213; (1942)2MLJ806
Wadsworth, J.1. These two civil revision petitions both arise out of an application for a declaration of the amount of a debt under the rules framed by the local Government in G.O. No. 2634 Development, dated 27th October, 1939, under Section 28 (2) of Madras Act IV of 1938. C.R.P. No. 497 of 1941 is against the decision of the District Judge that the appeal preferred to him from the trial Court's order was incompetent. The learned District Judge held that the appeal was incompetent on the ground that rule 9 which provides a right of appeal is ultra vires. This view cannot be now sustained. Rule 9 is within the powers of the local Government, but it does not follow that the appeal preferred to the learned District Judge was a competent appeal. Under rule 9 a right of appeal is given against an 'order of the Court declaring the amount of the debt under rule 7'. In the present case there was no order of the District Munsiff declaring the amount of the debt. The learned District Munsiff c...
Annabattula Appalaswami Vs. Mandala Appamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad24; (1942)2MLJ319
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises questions under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938 resulting from rather unusual facts. The petitioner was the tenant and against him a decree had been passed for arrears of rent for faslis 1341 to 1343. At the same time he was litigating with his landlord in the Civil Court and as a result of that litigation there was an amount of Rs. 100 lying in deposit in the Court of the District Munsiff which the petitioner was entitled to draw subject only to a possible claim for restitution by the landlord. The landlord executing his decree for rent got a prohibitory order attaching' this sum of Rs. 100 lying in the District Munsiff's Court to the credit of the tenant. It is asserted in the petition under Section 15 to the Revenue Court that this sum of Rs. 100 was actually transferred to the credit of the rent suit and was lying in deposit in the Revenue Court at the relevant period. This assertion is not contradicted in the counter-affidavit. On 27th September, ...
In Re: Thammana Ramalingayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad723; (1942)2MLJ357
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry of an offence punishable under Rule 19(1)(a) and (5) of the Defence of India Rules of sending by post to a destination outside British India (to wit the United States of America instructions for utilising any means of secretly conveying information (namely a Code)'.2. Two points are raised in this petition. The first is that as the letter was intercepted by the Censor at Bombay (or Madras) the letter was not sent. The second contention is that this Code is not a secret one.3. I think it correct to say that an article is sent if it is started on its way to its destination. For instance, if A gives a book to a messenger with instructions to give it to B I think it will be correct to say that A sent the book to B even though that messenger was waylaid and the book taken from him. One can say that the book was sent, but that it did not arrive at its destination. Any other interpretation would make rule 1...
Nalluswami Reddi Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad392; (1943)1MLJ277
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The petitioner laid a complaint of house-breaking and theft against his brothers-in-law and a man who is said to have enticed away his wife. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kulitalai found all the three accused guilty and, sentenced them to various fines and ordered the property to be restored to P. W. 1. In appeal, the Joint Magistrate of Karur, while not disagreeing with the Sub-Magistrate's finding that the accused had removed the property in question, thought that they had done so in good faith believing that the property belonged to the wife of the complainant. He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction; but he made no fresh order as to the disposal of the property. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, on a motion of the complainant, made a reference to the Joint Magistrate asking him for orders as to the disposal of the property; and the reply of the Joint Magistrate was that the property should be restored to the complainant as ordered by the Sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »