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.
In Re: Govindan Son of Thimma Chetty of Wellington
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad669; (1942)2MLJ280
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 for an offence punishable under Section 118-I(a)(ii) of the Cantonment Act of using threatening, abusive or insulting words; and he has also been bound over for a period of two years.2. As it was a summary trial it was not necessary that the Magistrates should record what the prosecution witnesses actually said; but it was necessary in convicting him to give a brief statement of the reasons. It can hardly be said that the Magistrates have done that. All they have said is 'We have heard both sides at length and unanimously . . . convict Govindan (Petitioner)'. A brief statement of their reasons would necessitate at least a short summary of what the prosecution witnesses had said, so as to indicate that the evidence had made out the case with which the accused had been charged, and also an indication that the Magistrates had believed that evidence. If there was defence evidence, it would further perhaps be neces...
Valliammal Vs. Ramaswamy Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad127; (1942)2MLJ720
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her husband advanced money under two mortgages, Exs. C and D, to one Palani Goundan and his son. These mortgages are dated respectively, 1917 and 1918. Ex. C was itself a renewal of a still earlier mortgage, Ex. II, between the same parties. In 1923 in execution of a money decree against the son of Palani Goundan the properties were sold in court auction and purchased by a Chettiar gentleman who in 1924 sold those properties to the first defendant, one of the conditions of the sale being the discharge of the mortgages, Exs. C and D, which bound the properties. We do not know whether Palani Goundan or his son were agriculturists. The defendants are admittedly agriculturists. On 9th July, 1924, the first defendant (the purchaser) executed the suit mortgage, Ex. A, for a sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the plaintiff's husband binding the properties covered by Exs. C and D and a considerable extent of other properties belonging to the first de...
Dondu Subbaraju and ors. Vs. Sri Rudraraju Venkatraju (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad403; (1943)1MLJ110
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits filed by tenants under Section 173 of the Estates Land Act and the arguments were confined to the claim in respect of mamul wet lands, and the ground for interference is also confined to the complaint that the Settlement Officer, in the proceedings taken under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act, did not note in the Record of Rights an agreement entered into in 1926 between the landlord and the ryot under which the water rate payable by ,'hem in respect of the mamul wet land was to be Rs. 2-8-0 per acre with no right in either party to claim a revision of the same and that the rent has been settled without giving effect to this agreement. The zamindar's contention was that the agreement was not valid and binding, that it was not binding on the officer who settled the rents under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act and that this suit was not maintainable in respect of this relief.2. The subject-matter of these appeals are lands situa...
Kuchibhotla Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Chandanmal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ191
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The first Despondent instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada to recover from the three defendants a sum of Rs. 2,086-14-6, which he claimed to be due on a promissory note, which the defendants had executed in his favour. The instrument was executed in these circumstances. The first defendant had borrowed moneys from the plaintiff on the security of what were represented to be cases of marketable goods, namely condensed milk and an ayurvedic medicine put up separately in bottles. The loan was not repaid and the plaintiff, as the pledgee, decided to sell them, which, of course, he had a right to do. The packages were opened for the purpose of sale and it was then found that they contained stones, husk, saw-dust, waste paper, etc. A gross fraud had been committed by the first defendant on the plaintiff arid there can be no doubt that the fraud involved an offence of cheating punishable under Section 42...
Periya Perumal Ammal Vs. Minor Veluchami Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad25; (1942)2MLJ484
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor under an appellate decree, dated 18th March, .1938. In execution of that decree the petitioner's property was sold, the decree-holder being given leave to bid and set-off The sale price was something less than the full decree amount. On the 27th July, 1938, before the sale was confirmed, the petitioner filed applications under Sections 20 and 19 of Act IV of 1938 and in due course the stay was ordered. The position therefore was that when the sale had been held, the set-off, though permitted, had not been completed by the confirmation of the sale-Vide Nataraja Pillai v. Rangasami Karumandar : (1941)2MLJ682 . and further proceedings in execution were stopped at this stage. On the 3rd March, 1939, in spite of this stay, the decree-holder was permitted to give up the balance due under the decree and record satisfaction by reason of the sale which had not yet been confirmed and the petition under Section 19 was dismissed on the ground ...
Minor Periakaruppan by Mother and Guardian, Rakkayee Ammal Vs. T. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad190; (1942)2MLJ563
Horwil, J.1. Two suits were brought against the petitioner and another on the ground that the petitioner's father and the other defendant were partners in a business to which sums of money were lent by the plaintiffs in these suits. These suits, were decreed.2. Various objections are raised to these decrees. One is that as the suits had been laid on the footing of a partnership, it was not open to the Court to pass decrees in favour of the plaintiffs on the footing of a holding out by the petitioner's father, which would, make him liable under Section 28 of the Partnership Act for the sums 6f money advanced. The suits were brought on the facts as they seemed to the plaintiffs, who deduced their legal relationship from the conduct of the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant's father in S. C. S. No. 2004 of 1938. It was only at the time of the trial, on account of evidence adduced by the 1st defendant, that some doubt was thrown on the existence of the partnership. The evidence adduced fo...
Khan Sahib K. Kunhammed Koya Vs. Mullasseri Gopala Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ744
Somayya, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of O.P. No. 99 of 1937 which was filed in the District Munsiff's Court of Calicut under Sections 22 and 23 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The first respondent in this appeal filed the petition asking that a renewal of a prior demise may be directed. The lands belong in jenmam to the Patinhare Kovilakam and were demised on kanom tenure to the first respondent by a registered deed, dated the 8th August, 1923. The term of that kanom expired on 8th August, 1935. The appellant obtained a melcharth from the second respondent on the 23rd March, 1937 and called upon the first respondent to deliver possession of the properties on receipt of the kanom amount and the value of the improvements. The demand not having been complied with, O.S. No. 482 of 1937 was filed by the appellant seeking to recover the suit properties from the first respondent. In order to non-suit the plaintiff, O.P. No. 99 of 1937 was filed asking for a compulsory renewal under the pro...
Doctor Manavala Ayyar Vs. Muhammad Yoosaf Maracair (Since Deceased) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad100; (1942)2MLJ398
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore to redeem what was claimed to be a mortgage by conditional sale. A preliminary decree for redemption having been passed in favour of the 1st respondent, this appeal has been preferred by the 6th defendant.2. The transaction as to the nature of which there was some dispute in the Court below was embodied in three documents, Exs. I, A and B, all executed on the same date, viz., 19th September, 1905. Ex. I purports to be a sale by the 1st respondent of item 1 of the plaint schedule for Rs. 15,000 to one Giria Chetty now represented by respondents 2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as mortgagees), and Ex. A purports to be an agreement to re-convey the property for the same sum to the 1st respondent after five and within ten years from that date, with a provision that if a reconveyance was claimed after the expiry of that period, an additional sum of Rs. 250 was to be paid for ev...
Syed Muhammad Ghouse Sahib Suthari Vs. Syed Muhammad Ghouse Sahib Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ511
Byers, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure an order by the Deputy Collector of the Musiri Division under Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The respondent has a preliminary objection that revision does not lie because the Deputy Collector exercising his functions under Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court. It is pointed out that the duty of the Deputy Collector is only to recognise or nominate one or other of the disputants as the landholder, an expression denned in the first half of the sub-section. Such recognition or nomination is only provisional and could be eon-tested in the ordinary civil Courts. In fact, Section 3(5) expressly states that the Deputy Collector's order is subject to any decree or order of a competent civil Court. The section makes no provision for any judicial enquiry and the use of the words 'recognise or nominate' indicates that the proceedings are pur...
Garimalla Sitaramamurti Vs. Thamma Lakshminarayanamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad185; (1942)2MLJ568
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the decree-holder in a suit decided by the District Munsiff of Chicacole. The judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 and as the result of that petition the trial Court directed an amendment of the decree. Against the order directing the amendment an appeal was filed to the Subordinate Judge under the rule framed by the Local Government under Act IV of 1938 which rule gave a right of appeal against an order under Section 19 of that Act. The appeal petition was accompanied by a copy of the decretal order of the trial Court but not by a copy of the amended decree. The Subordinate Judge entertained the appeal as an appeal against this order and dismissed it holding that the learned District Munsiff's decision was correct. The present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been filed in this Court and it is objected that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge, the rule providing for a right of appeal having been declared to be ul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »