Skip to content

Chennai Court November 1943 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.

Nov 02 1943

Rev. Kolandai Vs. Rev. Gnanavaram and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad156; (1943)2MLJ664

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant from a decree giving the plaintiff, a Protestant padri, a declaration that he is entitled to 60 cents of land in Survey No. 5/5 and for partition so that the 60 cents may be delivered over. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff on two grounds : namely, (a) that the gift of Survey No. 5/5 made by Appavu Kudumburar on 19th November, 1927, under Ex. II to a Roman Catholic Church was with the consent of his brother Singaravelu, P.W. 4, who is the plaintiff's vendor under Ex. F, dated 5th September, 1939, and (b) that the gift, even without such consent, was binding against the younger brother, because it was for a pious purpose made by the managing member of a joint Hindu family of a small item of property which lay uncultivated. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that it was not proved that Singaravelu consented to the gift deed and that the alienation was not binding as the gift wa...


Nov 02 1943

N.M.S.N.S. Kannappa Chettiar Alias Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. N.M.L. Subr ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad184

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These arise out of two petitions filed by the insolvent in I. P. No. 33 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottai for setting aside the sales held by the Official Receiver of Ramnad in respect of a house in Karaikudi and of a village in Palni Taluq by name Kallakadu. C. M. A. NO. 120 of 1943 and C.R. P. NO. 450 of 1943 relate to the sale of the house in Karaikudi, while the other two relate to the sale of the village of Kallakadu. The parties have-chosen to file both the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal as they were not sure whether an appeal would lie or not. The insolvent's case was that the house in Karaikudi which was a big double storied house with a garden situated in the central place in Karaikudi was worth about Rs. 3000 and that it had been sold for a low price of Rs. 1820. His complaint was that the property had not been properly described in the sale proclamation, that the municipal tax and several par...


Nov 02 1943

Roman Catholic Bishop, Dr. James Mendonca, by His Agent Rev. Fr. Chinn ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad265

Leach, C.J.1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trichinopoly, the Catholic Mission, Trichinopoly and 24 Roman Catholics who are members of the Vellala community of Varaganeri, a suburb of Trichinopoly. The Vellala plaintiffs had obtained permission to sue under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., on behalf of themselves and the Roman Catholic residents of Varaganeri. There were 25 defendants of whom defendants l to 23 were also members of the Vellala community of Varaganeri. Defendants 24 and 25 were priests of the Syrian Church, whose adherents recognise the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. The subject-matter of the suit is a Roman Catholic Church in Varaganeri, known as the Church of St. Francis Xavier. The suit was filed with the object of obtaining a decree for the possession of the church and for an injunction restraining the defendants from holding religious services therein. The Subordinate J...


Nov 02 1943

In Re: Muniandi Servai

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad251

Shahabuddin, J.1. The appellant Muniyandi Servai has been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad for the murder of one Kayambu Ammal. With the appellant, his cousin accused 1, was tried for the abetment of this murder; but the learned Sessions Judge convicted him of the abetment of causing hurt and sentenced him to a fine. We are concerned in this case only with the appellant, accused 2 before the trial Court.2. The case for the prosecution is that on 26th May last at about 11-30 A. M., the deceased Kayambu Ammal who was Irving in the house opposite to that of accused 1, close to which the appellant was living, came along the street leading the bulls of accused 1 abusing him because they had grazed in her paddy fields. Accused 1 thereupon asked the deceased in abusive language not to drive the bulls which she was taking to the pound, and the deceased abused him. At that stage the appellant interfered and accused 1 asked him to beat and kill the decease...


Nov 02 1943

Periyatan Thayyil Parvathi Amma Vs. Akkalath Kalanthar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad262

Horwill, J.1. This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment and for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the plaintiffs, the landlords, wanted the land for building purposes. During the pendency of the suit, a temporary injunction was issued ordering the tenant not to erect any further buildings on the land. The Court below accepted the contention of the plaintiff that they wanted the land for building purposes and gave them a decree for an ejectment. It further ordered compensation to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant for the value of the basement of the house erected on the land because that basement had been constructed before the issue of the injunction order; but it has refused to include the value of the house, built subsequent to and in disobedience of the injunction order.2. The tenant contends in second appeal that as the landlords did not prove that they needed the whole of the land for building purposes they cannot be given a decree ...


Nov 02 1943

In Re: Veerappan

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-02-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad424

ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Ramnad confirming the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Devakottah convicting the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 238A (1) (b) and Section 282A, Companies Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 238A(1)(b). He was directed to return the jewels in question within three months failing which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 282A, Companies Act.2. The petitioner was the managing agent of the Nagarathar National Bank Ltd. of Kandanoor. It was under liquidation and the Official Receiver of Ramnad was the Official Liquidator. The case against the petitioner was that he failed to deliver up to the liquidator, appointed by the Court in the winding up proceedings, certain jewels mentioned in the petition. His case was that he was not in possession of t...


Nov 01 1943

Mohammad Abdul Sathar Baig and ors. Vs. Hafija Bibi and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Nov-01-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Mad346

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in a suit instituted by the two sons and three daughters of a deceased Mahomedan Yusuf Baig, for a partition and recovery of their shares in the estate left by him. Yusuf Baig died on 3rd December 1927. Defendant 1 is his widow and she is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3, Mohamed Ismail and Mohamed Gaffur, are his younger brothers. Defendants i and 5 are the wives of Mohammed Ismail.2. The three brothers, Yusuf, Ismail and Gaffur were together carrying on a business in the manufacture and sale of beedies. From the profits of the business several immovable properties were purchased. They were treated as part of the assets of the business. On 22nd January 1926, Gaffur, the youngest of the brothers, left the business receiving for his share cash and property of the total value of Rs. 6000. The arrangement come to by the partners at the time is evidenced by a deed of release, Ex....


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial