Chennai Court August 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.
Puthen Purayil Krishnan Vs. U.M. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad171; (1942)2MLJ612
Horwill, J.1. On 6th November, 1939, the petitioner applied to attach a decree obtained against the 2nd respondent. Five days later, on 11th November, 1939, the 2nd respondent filed an application under the Debt Conciliation Act and notice was ordered to the decree-holder. On 20th December, 1939, the attachment of the decree was ordered. More than a year later, on 22nd January, 1941, an agreement was entered into under Section 14 (1) whereby the debt of the creditor was considerably reduced. When the petitioner put in an application to execute the attached decree, it was dismissed by the District Munsiff on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to execute the decree; because such rights as the original decree-holder had against the 2nd respondent had been superseded by the agreement.2. Under Section 14 (2) of the Debt Conciliation Act, an agreement entered into between a creditor and debtor has to be registered. It then takes effect as if it were a decree of a Civil Court and...
Pallaprolu Krishnamacharlu and anr. Vs. Pallaprolu Rangacharlu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad136; (1942)2MLJ687
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal is concerned with a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, in respect of an excepted temple known as the Sri Udayavarla Sannadhi which is situate in a suburb of Nellore. The Board decided that there should be two trustees in addition to the four hereditary trustees and in Clause (3) of the scheme the Board took power to appoint one of the trustees as the managing trustee for such period as it might deem fit not exceeding three years. The appellants objected to this provision and filed a suit in the District Court of Nellore under Section 63 (4) of the Act. The District Judge decided that the Board had power to make such a provision and held it to be unobjectionable. The appeal is from that decision.2. In support of his contention that the Board had no power to provide that one of the trustees shall be appointed as a managing trustee, the learned advocate for...
Krishnama Naicken and anr. Vs. Sivasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad709; (1943)2MLJ281
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner in the lower Court is the first appellant and the judgment-debtor the second appellant. The first respondent is the decree-holder and the second and third respondents are said to be purchasers of certain properties. We have had great difficulty in ascertaining the facts in this case because of the incomplete state of the record. Arguments have, however, proceeded before us by consent on the following basis. There was an attachment before judgment sometime before the 15th March, 1939. On the 23rd March, 1939, certain properties which may be designated property Z were sold to the petitioner-appellant for Rs. 2,500 with instructions to pay the purchase price towards the decree. He paid Rs. 200 on the 25th July, 1939, and Rs. 300 on the 7th November, 1939, and both these sums were paid to the decree-holder and part satisfaction was entered. But he did not pay the balance. On the 27th March, 1940, by reason of this default other properties, which we will call pr...
Valliappa Chettiar Vs. Arandi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad706; (1942)2MLJ470
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Collector of Coimbatore. The application arises out of a petition filed under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, asking for an order directing the resumption of certain Devadayam mam lands granted to the Kariakaliamman, Athanur Amman and Mariamman temples in the village of Alambadi. The petition was filed by the trastees of these temples. The petitioner now before us and six other persons were made respondents, as they were in possession of the lands as alienees. The respondents raised the contention that the section had no retrospective effect and this was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Consequently he held that the application filed by the trustees was not maintainable. Thereupon the trustees appealed to the Collector of Coimbatore under Section 44-B(2)(d)(i) which says:Any party aggrieved by an order of the Collector ...
In Re: Kamakshi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad89; (1942)2MLJ549
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of committing a criminal breach of trust with regard to a cycle that he had hired. There was evidence that he had borrowed the cycle and that he had sold it to some other person. There was also evidence of a confession. The question that arises in this petition is whether that confession was admissible.2. The petitioner was arrested in connection with another criminal breach of trust in respect of a cycle that he had also taken on hire and then sold. While in custody for that breach of trust, he confessed that he had sold another cycle to P.W. 12. As a result of that confession the cycle was discovered. It is argued that such a confession is not admissible, because he was under arrest, not in connection with the theft of the cycle that was discovered as a result of the confession, but in connection with another case. I do not think that there is any substance in this point. Section 27 of the Evidence Act says that when any fact is deposed t...
In Re: V. Chengiah Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad745; (1942)2MLJ576
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was the President of the Panchayat Board, Anwardikanpet, Arkonam Taluk, which Board was superseded by the Government. The special officer appointed to conduct the affairs of the Panchayat demanded from the petitioner certain records belonging to the Panchayat. The allegation is that the petitioner refused to hand over the records asked for. The petitioner was therefore charged and convicted under Section 208 (3) of the Local Boards Act. In appeal, his conviction and sentence were affirmed.2. The point on which this revision petition was admitted was whether the sanction of the Local Government for the prosecution was necessary. The section that requires the sanction of the Local Government before certain cases can be instituted against a member or President of a Local Board is Section 227-A of the Madras Local Boards Act, which says that when the President or any member of a Local Board is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him wh...
In Re: V.A. Gayasudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad211; (1942)2MLJ547
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner despatched from the Madras Central Station two drums, the contents of which he described as wood oil, A railway constable became suspicious and examined the drums at Melpatti Station. He then found that they contained denatured spirit with some solid matter in it, which was found, after the distillation of the spirit, to contain a substance which the analyst thought might have been shellac. The petitioner says that these ten gallons of denatured spirit contained a viss of shellac and a viss of resin. There is no reason to doubt the truth of that statement; and so we may for the purpose of this petition assume that statement to be true. The petitioner was charged under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act for the illicit transport of ten gallons of denatured spirit and was convicted. He was also charged under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code with making a false declaration that the drums contained wood oil; but of this offence he was found ...
The India Sugars and Refineries, Ltd., a Limited Liability Company Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad191; (1942)2MLJ663
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit to recover licence-fees and profession tax alleged to have been wrongfully levied by the defendant, the Municipal Council, Hospet, during the period from October, 1933 to September, 1937. The plaintiff company started to build a sugar factory in Hospet in October, 1933. Profession tax was levied on the Company from the half year ending 31st March, 1934, onwards. It seems to be clear that the plaintiff company did not actually start manufacture until the beginning of 1935 and with reference to the first year's profession tax the question is really one of limitation. The learned District Judge has found on the authority of the decisions in the Municipal Council, Dindigul v. The Bombay Company, Limited (1928) 56 M.L.J. 525 : I.L.R. 52 Mad. 207. and The Rajputana Malwa Railway Co-operative Stores, Ltd. v. The Ajmere Municipal Board I.L.R. (1910) All. 491. , that Article 62 of the Limitation Act applies and that the suit with referen...
Tripasuru Venkata Narasinga Rao Vs. Vysyaraju Surayya Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad91
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole in a suit brought by the appellant to redeem a mortgage executed by him and his sons in favour of respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The appellant's sons were impleaded in the suit as defendants 2 to 4 of whom defendant 4 died soon after the suit was instituted and the surviving sons are respondents 2 and 3 to this appeal. The mortgage was executed on 27th March 1929 at Berhampore in Ganjam District then part of the Madras Presidency, and it provides for the repayment of the principal sum of Rs. 26,000 with compound interest at fourteen annas per cent, per month with yearly rests. The mortgage money was charged on immovable properties situated partly in Vizagapatani District and partly on Ganjam District. The appellant's main contention in the Court below, and only contention in this appeal, was that he and his sons were agiculturists with...
Angadi Masumayya Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad72; (1942)2MLJ504
Mockett, J.1. The appellant is the insolvent in I.P. No. 44 of 1931 in the Court of the District Judge of Kurnool. He holds what are described as the Masjid service inam lands granted for doing service in Gaffar Sab Mosque in Gaduthamadugu. He alleges in his petition, the subject-matter of this appeal, that he is doing the service and that he has a right to enjoy the lands. The Official Receiver had claimed that the right to let the lands is vested in him. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to delivery of possession of the lands concerned which 'by mistake' had been delivered to the Official Receiver. According to the Official Receiver since 1931 he had been in possession in the sense that he had been letting out these lands to Mohammadan cultivators and he states that there is no complaint that the service was not rendered in the mosque till now. The learned Judge refused the application of the appellant and the possession of the lands remained with the Official Receiver.2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »