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.
In Re: Makky Moithu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad278; (1943)1MLJ154
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, Quilandy, under Sections 109 and 379, Indian Penal Code, for cutting trees and taking them away from the Government forest and their convictions were confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Calicut.2. This petition was admitted on two points : firstly, whether there was any evidence on which the conviction of the first accused could be based and, secondly, on the question whether a certain report made by the Deputy Tahsildar in charge of the forest in question to the Collector is privileged. On the first point, the only evidence against the first accused is the admission of the second accused that he had committed the offence at the instigation of the first accused and the presence of the marks of the first accused on the trees. The admission of the second accused is an exculpatory statement in so far as the first accused is concerned; for he merely transfers the blame from his own shoulders to tho...
The Madura, Etc., Devasthanams, Through Its Executive Officer, R.S. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad153; (1943)1MLJ144
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Madura Meenakshi Devasthanam for a sum of Rs. 7,673-12-10 by way of damages against two persons, the first of whom is the ex-trustee and the other an execution clerk of the Devasthanam. The claim against the first defendant, with whom we are concerned in the present appeal, was made on account of gross negligence alleged to have been committed by him between the 12th November, 1930, and the nth November, 1935, when he held the office of a trustee. The negligence is said to have consisted(a) in allowing certain rents to become barred by limitation without instituting suits for their recovery;(b) in permitting the second defendant (the execution clerk) to withdraw certain amounts for the expenses of suits or executions which were never spent and some of which were drawn twice over; and(c) in tendering no explanation with reference to certain items when called upon so to do.The first defendant who was a Tahsildar in Govern...
Kalianna Goundan Vs. Masayappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad149; (1942)2MLJ750
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In Ramanayya v. Rangappayya I.L.R. (1893) Mad. 144 this Court held that where there is an attachment before judgment of family property in a suit against a member of an undivided Hindu family who is not sued as the representative of the family, and the defendant dies before the decree is passed, the right of the survivor in the property is not affected. The basis of this decision is that in such a case the attachment is merely intended to protect the property from alienation by the defendant pending the decision of the suit. Until the decree is passed the attachment cannot operate to render the property attached available for sale in execution. This judgment has been accepted as correctly interpreting the law for nearly fifty years, but the learned advocate for the appellant suggests that the decision is wrong and that the law should be restated.2. In the present case two brothers Muthu Goundan and Masayyappa Goundan were joint. On the 21st of October,...
In Re: Abdur Shukur Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad500; (1943)1MLJ409
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused was charged by the police with preferring a false and frivolous charge against police officials at Polur.2. The accused sent a petition containing various allegations, which were subsequently found to be false, to the District Superintendent of Police. His letter was posted at Polur and apparently opened by the District Superintendent of Police at Vellore. The Post Office, therefore, acted as the agent of the accused in carrying this letter to the District Superintendent of Police at North Arcot; and the effect was the same as if the accused had handed over the letter in person to the District Superintendent of Police at Vellore. The false or frivolous charge was therefore made at Vellore and not at Polur. It therefore follows that the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be the Magistrate at Vellore.3. The petition is therefore allowed and the Magistrate ordered to return the charge-sheet to be presented to the Magistrate having jurisdiction....
Krishna Reddi Vs. Muniappa Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad34; (1942)2MLJ556
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Although, this petition was against an order of acquittal, it was admitted because the learned appellate Magistrate seemed to lay down a principle which might be injurious to the interests of the Thirumalai Devasthanam if that order were allowed to stand without criticism.2. The trial Court found that the pond in question was an irrigation pond belonging to the Thirumalai Devasthanam, although some of the water that flowed from it irrigated fields that did not belong to the Devasthanam. It is argued that because the pond belonged to the Devasthanam, the fish in the pond must also belong to the Devasthanam and that any person taking fish from that pond without permission therefore committed theft. The appellate Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused because 'fish in a pond cannot form the subject of theft'; and it quoted as authorities The Queen v. Revu Pothadu I.L.R. (1882) Mad. 390. and Subba Reddi v. Munshoor Ali Saheb I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 81. The Q...
Syed Abdul Huq Sahib Vs. Raj Muhammad Kabuli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad28; (1942)2MLJ482
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the Courts below have held that his action is barred by the law of limitation. We do not share this opinion.2. On the 15th January, 1920, the plaintiff sold certain immovable property to one Mohamed Ghouse for the sum of Rs. 1,750 of which Rs. 1,150 was paid immediately. For the balance of Rs. 600, the purchaser executed a promissory note in favour of the Vendor. On the 16th July, 1920, Mohamed Ghouse mortgaged the property to the Catholic Permanent Fund. The mortgage debt was not repaid and the mortgagee was compelled to file a suit on the mortgage. As the result, a decree was obtained and in execution the property was sold, the respondent being the purchaser. On the 30th December, 1920, 9th January, 1921 and 5th July, 1924, Mohamed Ghouse made payments to account of the amount due on the promissory note which he had executed in favour of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›