Chennai Court March 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.
Koppolu Venkataswami Vs. Uttarkar Sara Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad633; (1943)2MLJ41
Somayya, J.1. I have had the benefit of full and exhaustive arguments on the questions involved in this case. One is whether the case comes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the second is whether under Article 11 of the Act, the starting point is the date of the first order or the final order passed on a revision to the High Court.2. The facts that are material for the decision of these questions are not in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant obtained a money decree against the second defendant in O.S. No. 98 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Gooty and in execution of the said decree attached a house as belonging to his judgment-debtor. The first defendant who is the first respondent in this Court intervened with a claim petition which was allowed on the 21st January, 1938. On the 22nd March, 1938, the plaintiff who was the attaching decree-holder filed a revision petition before the High Court which was admitted and it was ultimately dismissed on the '28th Nov...
Virupaksha Reddi and anr. Vs. Chanalal Siva Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad652; (1943)2MLJ87
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from the preliminary decree passed by the District Judge of Bellary in a suit for partition instituted by the appellants, who are the sons of Chenabasavana Gowd. Chenabasavana Gowd was the third defendant. The first two defendants are his elder broilers. Ayyana Gowd, the eldest, died during the pendency of the suit. His son was the fourth defendant in the suit and the third respondent here. Siva Reddy, the next brother, was the second defendant in the Ccurt below and the first respondent in the appeal. On the 16th February, 1932, Ayyana Gowd was adjudicated on a creditor's petition, I.P. No. 43 of 1931. Later, on the 20th December, 1933, the two other brothers were also adjudicated insolvents. After the adjudication the Official Receiver, in whom the property of the inso vents vested, sold on 8th March, 1934, items 2 to 5, 12 to 33 and 34 in schedule B to Chinna Anjanappa who was the sixth defendant and now the fifth respondent. The appella...
Pl. Tl. thenappa Chettiar by Agent M.S. Ganesa Iyer Vs. the Indian Ove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad743; (1943)2MLJ201
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff Thenappa Chettiar is the son of Lakshmanan Chettiar, who was for some time one of the directors of the Indian Overseas Bank, Ltd., the defendant. Lakshmanan Chettiar held 402 shares in the defendant Bank. He died on 1st December, 1940, leaving a registered will dated 28th November, 1940. This will is Ex. P-I and has been proved by its writer, P.W. 1. Under the will, it is provided that the plaintiff Thenappa should get the Bank shares transferred in his own name and manage all the family properties as guardian for the other male children till they attain majority; he was to collect the outstandings and pay the debts due and was also to sell, purchase or transfer all movable and immovable properties at Karaikudi as he considered proper.2. On 30th December, 1940 the plaintiff applied to the Bank for transfer of the 402 shares in his name, relying on the will, a registration copy of which he enclosed.3. This letter is Ex. P-2. The defendant Bank re...
D. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. K. Sesha Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad523; (1943)1MLJ414
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is a hotel-keeper and the question is whether the vessels with which he prepares sweetmeats are tools of an artisan within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code which are exempt from attachment. The lower Court held they were.2. The word '' artisan '' has a well-recognised meaning and is roughly synonymous with 'handicraftsman' or 'mechanic.' The three artisans mentioned in the Hereditary Village Offices Act, namely, blacksmith, carpenter and potter, are examples of what is ordinarily understood by the term ' artisan,' although they undoubtedly do not exhaust the class of artisans. The use of the word 'tool ' in Section 60 (1) (b) is also an indication that the word ' artisan ' is used in its ordinary sense as a man who uses tools. If we give an extended meaning to ' artisan ' to include persons not ordinarily regarded as artisans, then it becomes necessary to give an extended meaning to ' tools ' also and to regard as tools things w...
In Re: Kanniya Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Mad145
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The case against the petitioner was that he assaulted the complainant because the complainant had informed against him. The accused was charged Under Section 75, City Police Act, and was found guilty by a Bench, of Presidency Magistrates and sentenced to a month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25 with one week's imprisonment in default. He was also bound over Under Section 106, Criminal P.C. The finding of fact that the accused assaulted P.W. 1 cannot be canvassed here in revision. It is however contended that a person cannot be convicted Under Section 75, City Police Act, unless he has been found to be both drunk and disorderly and that as there is no evidence in this case and no finding, that the accused was drunk his conviction was illegal. Section 75, however, does not say that only persons who are drunk and are found guilty of riotous or disorderly or indecent behavior can be convicted. If that had been the meaning of Section 75, it would have been wor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›