Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: K.C. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad388
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge, at the time of the trial, was sitting in his capacity as Special Judge trying an offence under the Defence of India Rules. The accused was charged with an offence under Rule 35(A) (2), Defence of India Rules which reads : 'If any person dishonestly receives or retains, or voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with, any sabotaged property, knowing, or having reason to believe, the same to be sabotaged property, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.' 'Sabotaged property' is defined in Rule 35(A)(1) as meaning, 'property the possession of which has been transferred by, or in consequence of, any such act as is referred to in Sub-rule (1) of rule 35,' and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 35 deals with acts of sabotage. The fa...
In Re: Vadivelu Arsuthiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad77; (1943)2MLJ445
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point argued in this appeal is that on the facts stated there could be no forgery, because the signature that is said to have been forged is the signature of the idol of Venkatachalapathi and the idol cannot be said to be a person. In Ex. A the document in question it does not appear that the signature in it was shown as the signature of the idol of Venkatachalapathi. It reads as if it is the signature of a person by name Venkatachalapathi. The fact is that the property stood in the name of the idol of Sri Venkatachalapathi and the patta was sought to be transferred from the name of the idol to the name of the first accused by the document, Ex. A. On the strength of the observations in Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetti (1918) 36 M.L.J. 575 : I.I.R. Mad. 440 it is urged for the appellant that Venkatachalapathi is not 'a specific person, real or artificial.' The observation made in that page relates to a general dedication at the time of ceremonial...
E.J. John Vs. the Collector of Malabar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad189; (1943)2MLJ638
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant filed an application for letters of administration in favour of the Collector of the district with reference to the will of one Antony Chandikunjan, who died on 7th June, 1934, having executed and registered a will dated 20th September, 1924. By that will the testator appointed as his executors (1) his son, the third respondent, (2) the Rev. Father John, who has since died and (3) the vicars of two churches within the diocese of Cochin. The will provided a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the establishment of a convent within the parish of Santa Cruz, Cochin, and also set apart a considerable extent of land for the endowment of a chapel. The petition alleges that the petitioner is a prominent parishioner of Santa Cruz Cathedral Church and a person interested as a beneficiary in the proper administration of the properties set apart by the testator for trust purposes. It is also alleged that the executors named in the will have 'slept over the will,' making it easy for...
Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Ar. Ar. Umayal Achi Vs. Lakshmi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad340
Leach, C.J.1. These appeals and civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah, with reference to the estate of one RM.AR.AR.RM. Arunachalam Chettiar, who died on 23rd February 1938. Appeals Nos. 321 of 1940, 3,104 and 239 of 1941 are from a preliminary decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in a suit for the administration of the estate. The petitions ask for the revision of orders passed in the suit. C. M. A. No. 282 of 1941 is against an order granting probate of a will executed by Arunachalam on 8th January 1938. These matters have been heard together and can be dealt with conveniently in one judgment.2. The testator, who was a member of the Nattukottai Chettiar community was a very wealthy man. His personal assets have been estimated to be worth Rs. 39,66,100. He had assets in British India, Burma, Federated Malay States, Ceylon and French Cochin China. In addition, he was the trustee of numerous charities, the endo...
In Re: Sangili Velan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad498
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly with regard to the commitment of the accused in C. c. No. 526 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Lalgudi. The accused in that case was charged with having committed theft. The Magistrate tried him as in a war-rant case, found him guilty, convicted him of the offence of theft, and as he was an old offender he committed the accused to sessions. It is pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that after having found him guilty, he ought not to have committed the accused to the Sessions Court. It was open to him to send the papers to a First Class Magistrate] for passing an enhanced sentence in view of the fact that the accused was an old offender. Instead of doing so he committed him to sessions. This is irregular, especially as the provisions relating to the enquiry into offences as laid down under Chap. 18, Criminal P.C., had not been followed. The conviction and sentence a...
Shanmugham Pillai Vs. Namagiri Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad71; (1943)2MLJ454
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the execution petition was barred by limitation. The appellant was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 70 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Kulitalai. The respondent was the attaching creditor who had attached the decree in this suit--O.S. No. 70 of 1923. The appellant contended that his petition, E.P. No. 57 of 1941 filed on 13th September, 1940 was barred by limitation as it was not filed either within three years from the date of the decree, or within three years from the date of a final order on a valid petition for execution of the decree-. The first Court found that the petition was barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly held that the petition was not barred by limitation holding that the prior execution petition must be considered to be still pending and that therefore the proceedings should be based on the first petition itself. Hence this appe...
M.R.M. Murugappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.M. Chengalvaraya Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad465
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants before this Court are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 115 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Trichinopoly, and the appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due in respect of the liability under the security bond executed by defendant 1 in the suit by respondent 2 herein. Defendants 2 to 5-respondents 3 to 6 herein are' the sons of defendant 1. Defendant 6, respondent 1 in this appeal, was impleaded as the subsequent alienee of the hypotheca, being the purchaser of the house at the court auction held in O.S. No. 36 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Trichinopoly which was a suit filed by the Trichinopoly Municipality for recovery of arrears of municipal taxes due on the property. The plaintiff's contention was that the purchase in court. auction was as a result of fraud committed by defendant 6 in collusion with the other defendants. The main contest in appeal is as between the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›