Chennai Court July 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.
Naraharisetti Anjaneyalu Vs. Naraharasetti Vijayaraghavamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad16; (1943)2MLJ366
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner was declared insolvent. Alter his secured creditors had been satisfied, nothing remained to pay anything at all to any of the unsecured creditors, with the result that none of the creditors shown in the Schedule took the trouble to prove their debts, with the exception of his own deserted wife and her son. When the petitioner applied for discharge, the learned District Judge expressed an opinion on the very scanty materials before him (the official Receiver's report was necessarily very bare, for he had no funds for conducting a minute inquiry into the causes which led the petitioner to have no assets remaining for distribution to his creditors) that the petitioner had been secreting some of his property and so did not accept his evidence with regard to his present status and to the sum received by him. He therefore passed this order:The petitioner will be granted an order of final discharge, at the end of 18 months from now, if he is shown to have paid a s...
Bolla Subbanna Vs. Balanagu Satyanarayanamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad789; (1943)2MLJ295
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the first judgment-debtor against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree of that Court in O.S. No. 43 of 1937. The decree was one upon a first mortgage and the puisne mortgagee was also made a party to the suit. At the Court sale held on the 6th August, 1941, the properties in question were knocked down in favour of respondents 1 to 3. The appellant filed the application out of which this appeal arises on the 30th August, 1941, under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the sale of the 6th August, 1941, may be set aside. Substantial loss was urged in the Court below and this plea, was found against. Mr. Suryanarayana, the earned Counsel for the appellant, says that on the state of the evidence he cannot challenge the correctness of the finding of the lower Court on this point. It is urged before us that there was an illegality in the conduct of the sale a...
Damodara Moothan Vs. Ammu Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad22; (1943)2MLJ332
Horwill, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is with regard to the construction of a will which has been marked as Ex. A. It was held by the District Munsiff of Palghat, who tried the suit, that according to the will one Kunjammal, the sixth defendant and mother of the plaintiff, had an absolute interest and that therefore the plaintiff had no cause of action. He therefore dismissed the suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge construed the will as conferring upon the sixth defendant and her children the plaintiff and the seventh defendant, joint rights in the property after the death of their mother, the widow of the testator. He therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal, because the disposal of the suit then depended upon the result of certain inquiries as to the binding nature of the alienations and other matters.2. After the testator had expressed his regret that he had no male issue and had only a young daughter often years of age, he sai...
In Re: Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad37; (1943)2MLJ182
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Salem dismissing the petitioner's petition No. 47 of 1942, to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri passed on an inquiry held by him on a reference from the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Hosur. The petitioner sent a telegram to the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Hosur com-pjfiining that his brother and himself were tortured by the Pennagaram police. The Assistant Superintendent forwarded the telegram to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri as required by Police Order No. 157 for inquiry. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted the inquiry, held that the allegations were not proved and ordered that no action be taken. It was to revise this order that the petition was filed before the Additional District Magistrate. The Additional District Magistrate held that the inquiry by the Magistrate under Police Order 157 was only a departmenta...
In Re: N.S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad720; (1943)2MLJ197
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in both these petitions is the same person and the offence is said to have been committed in respect of the same motor vehicle. He happened to be a dealer in radio sets and owned a motor vehicle. It had a driver's seat and another cushioned seat by the side of the driver. The rear portion was enclosed by plates and inside these was a bench. The Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined as P.W. I described it as having the shape of a van though registered only as a motor car in, Ex. II. The prosecution case was that he was using this vehicle for the transport of goods like radio sets and that it was therefore a transport vehicle and that the car was so used without a certificate of fitness as required by Section 38(1) and without a special permit as required by Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was also prosecuted for not having reported all the alterations in the structure of the car made after the issue of Ex. II, to the authorities as r...
Gadela Venkayamma Vs. Gadela Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad767; (1943)2MLJ348
Happell, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal filed a suit for maintenance in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada. In effect, she pleaded that a maintenance deed which she had executed many years before was in fact void and that she should be granted maintenance at a rate higher than that expressed to be payable in the deed. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from claiming maintenance at a higher rate than the rate payable under the deed by the terms of the deed itself; and the claim for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance, whether payable at the contract rate or at the rate claimed in the plaint, was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was leading an unchaste life. Six issues were framed in the suit. The first three relate in substance to the question whether the suit was maintainable in view of the previous maintenance deed. The fourth and fifth relate to the right to future maintenance and arrears of maintenance and ...
Subramaniam Pillai and anr. Vs. Kavundappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad663; (1943)2MLJ177
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners filed an application in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore to sue in forma pauperis. After notice to the respondents and examining certain documents produced by the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the mortgage on which the petitioners wished to sue had been discharged. He therefore dismissed their application, although he found that in fact they were paupers and unable to pay the court-fee....2. If the Court is to dismiss an application to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that there is no subsisting cause of action, it must be able to draw that conclusion from the allegations in the plaint itself. It may be permissible to read with the plaint the documents referred to in the plaint, but the Court should not travel beyond the plaint and perhaps these documents. The learned advocate for the respondents says that the learned Subordinate Judge has not done that; but it does appear from t...
Al. Sp. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rajah of Ramnad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad660; (1943)2MLJ315
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are cowledars of the Rajah of Ramnad. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Rajah in the Court of the District Munsiff of Paramakudi to recover monies claimed to be due to hint by the appellants in respect of land cess. The question here is whether under Section 88 of the Local Boards Act the sum of money found to be due to him in respect of land cess for faslis 1342 to 1347 is repayable with interest. It is common ground that the amounts due for land cess became payable after the amendment in 1932 of the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920. Section 88 of the Local Boards Act provides that in case of lands occupied by tenants it is lawful for the landholder to recover from his tenant one-half of the amount payable by him in respect of the lands occupied.2. The claim for interest is based on an agreement entered into between the parties and embodied in a decree passed by consent in O.S. No. 21 of 1917. The relevant portion of the...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Munian Alias Payya Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad207; (1943)2MLJ675
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai acquitting the four accused in C.C. No. 170 of 1942 on his file. All these four accused were charged for an offence under Section 429, Indian Penal Code, and tried by the Second Class Magistrate of Polur. The case against them was that they killed a bull which was stolen by the accused 1 and 2. The case of theft was tried separately. All these four accused were tried by the Second Class Magistrate of Polur, who after taking evidence, was of opinion that all of them were guilty under Section 429, but thought that as the first accused was a first offender and as the report of the District Probation Officer recommended his release on probation of good conduct he should send the papers to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1937. But instead of sending the records with the first accused alone, he directed all the accused to be produced be...
In Re: Ezhuvan Velappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad681; (1943)2MLJ176
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Malabar with regard to the sentence passed on the accused in C.C. No. 13 of 1943 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Malabar. The accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and released under Section 562(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the accused executing a bond for Rs. 100 with two sureties for a like sum. The accused and P.W. 2 were baling out water to irrigate the fields of one Velani with a swing bucket. The rope broke and the bucket went off and struck against the accused. The accused was irritated and thereupon took a chandrahasam which was lying nearby and struck the complainant who got a bleeding injury. The complainant cried and others came and prevented the accused from causing further injuries. The injuries inflicted on P.W.2 resulted in his being in hospital for two months and thus being prevented from attending to his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »