Chennai Court December 1944 Judgments
Minor Krishnaswami by Grandmother and Next Friend, Pankajammal Vs. Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ220
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The minor appellant wanted to come on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff, one Soundaravalli Ammal, who filed the suit for an injunction as regards a party wall between two houses. He claimed to be the legal representative under the two wills, one executed by Soundaravalli Ammal herself and another by her husband Narasimhachari. The lower Courts have held that Soundaravalli Animal's will has not been proved and that the appellant took no estate under the will of Narasimhachari because the provision in his favour follows after an absolute estate in the property conferred on the wife Soundaravalli Ammal. The minor has preferred this appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that as no appeal has been preferred from the order declaring that the suit has abated as no proper legal representative has come on record within the prescribed time, the second appeal was incompetent. The Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for any appeal against an o...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Pasala Venkata Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ223
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor of accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1944 before him. It is possible for us to deal with this appeal very shortly because it has come to what may perhaps rightly be described as a somewhat sudden and dramatic end. The facts need only be summarised. It is in evidence that the two accused who were grazing goats were in the company of the two deceased men, Masthan Sahib a forest guard, and Thimmiah, his watcher, in the Chalimamidi Reserve forest on the 31st December, 1943. It is further in evidence that the accused resented the action of the deceased in objecting to what the deceased apparently thought was illegal grazing by the accused's goats. The deceased men disappeared. Search was made and their bodies were eventually found. The prosecution relied, it may be said, almost entirely, on a confessional statement alleged to have been made by the first accused and admissibl...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Ratnavelu Chettiar by Mother and Guardian Madhuravalli Ammal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad388; (1945)1MLJ472
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants The suit properties were originally owned by one Murugappa Chetti. The first defendant purchased them from third defendant's guardian on the footing that the third defendant is Murugappa's son and the fourth defendant is an alience from the first defendant. The plaintiff claims under a Court sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against the second defendant. His case is that the second defendant was the adopted son of Mrugappa Chetti, the original owner of the property and that the third defendant was not the son of Murugappa. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 danied the second defendant's adoption.2. The lower appellate Court found that the second defendant's adoption by ' Murugappa is true and that the third defendant is the legitimate son of Murugappa. On this finding the plaintiff would be entitled to a half share and defendants 1, 3 and 4 to another half share.3. But the validity of the Court auction at which the plaintiff became...
Tag this Judgment!J. Beckett and ors. Vs. Mrs. Wendy E. Norris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1944
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ435
ORDERMockett, J.1. The petitioners are the committee members of the Kodaikanal Club. They have been convicted of defaming Mrs. Norris, who, as the wife of a member, is privileged to use the club under rule IV, Clause 2 of the Club Rules. She is not of course a member of the club. The penalty imposed by the learned Magistrate was a fine of Rs. 10 on each accused. This is a most unfortunate case in many respects. The complainant was no doubt (although dealing with her own countrymen) entitled to avail herself of the remedy by prosecution rather than by civil action in damages. The effect has been curious in a community used to, what I will describe as, the right rather than the privilege of giving evidence on oath. Although it has been of the utmost importance in this case that they should (the burden of proof being cast upon them) be able to give evidence on oath, the accused have been prohibited from doing so owing to the proceedings being in a criminal forum. I will return to this asp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mareedu Somaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad409; (1945)1MLJ334
ORDERHappell, J.1. This criminal revision case arises out of C.C. No. 36 of 1943 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gudivada which was itself a case, although the convictions were made Under Sections of the Penal Code, which arose out of a search carried out under the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act. The facts were, these: The Sub-Inspector of Excise, Gudivada, obtained a warrant from the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gudivada, Under Section 30, Madras Abkari Act, for the search of the house of the house of D.W. 6. He proceeded to carry out the search on 11th December 1942 with his two peons, P. Ws. 3 and 4 and a panchayatdar whom he took with him, P. W. 2 The search docs not appear to have been entirely unanticipated as on their arrival, while they were standing outside the wall of the yard attached to the house, they saw from the door of the yard accused 4 run out of the house carrying a bottle. P. WS. 3 and 4 got over the wall and P.W. 3 caught hold of accused 4. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Ayinampudi Kotayya and ors. Vs. Ayinampudi Krishna Rao (Minor) by Moth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad290; (1945)1MLJ74
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the minor sons of one Rama Rao who died in the month of May 1941. They sued through their mother as their next friend. The principal defendants were their grandfather (the first defendant), their uncle Tatayya (the second defendant), and their aunt Vemuri Sitaramamma (the third defendant). A notice demanding a partition was served upon the first defendant, the manager, by the plaintiffs' mother, who was their lawful guardian, on the 27th October, 1941. The suit was instituted on the 29th of the following month. The first defendant did not object to a partition and a decree for partition was granted. The appellants are the first three defendants. They contend that the Subordinate Judge erred in declaring that a gift of two acres of land by the first defendant in favour of his daughter the third defendant, was not binding on the family. They further contend that the Subordinate Judge erred in refusi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ekambareswaraswami Temple of Sirukarambayur by Trustee A.R.L. Kupp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad332; (1945)1MLJ317
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiffs are the inamdars of the vilkge called Adambur in the taluk of Arantangi in the Tanjore District. There is a tank called the Adambur tank situated wholly inside this village. This tank irrigates the lands which are situate in this village. On some of the wet lands second crop was raised. The Government levied water cess for the reason that a channel known as Ammanam Kolakkal coming from north feeds this tank and that that channel is Government channel. A further point was raised that the inamdars, the plaintiffs, have raised the level of the surplus weir of that tank. It would appear that below the suit village there is a Government village called Sadayamangalam and that the Sadayamangalam tank receives the surplus water of the Adambur tank. On these two grounds, namely, that the Ammanam Kolakkal was a Government channel and that the height of the surplus weir of Adambur tank was raised, the levy of water cess is sought to be justified. It is not disputed, a...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal and ors. Vs. Rajambu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ73
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions are the legal representatives of the defendant (deceased) in O.S. No. 27 of 1933 on the file of the lower Court and the sole respondent in Appeal No. 400 of 1942 on the file of this Court. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the appeal to His Majesty in Council in this case is below Rs. 10,000; but the two suits O.S. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1933 were disposed of by the lower Court by a common judgment; and the appeals in this Court were also disposed of by a common judgment. They raise substantially the same questions, namely, the mental capacity of Somasundara and the way in which the defendants conspired together to obtain the various alienations in their favour. We think this is a fit case in which consolidation should be ordered. C.M.P. No. 5645 of 1944 is therefore ordered and we direct the appeal to His Majesty, in Council to be consolidated with the appeal from the decree of this Court in Appeal No. 381 of 1941. If this is done...
Tag this Judgment!Rm.P.Rm.P. Valliappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad223; (1945)1MLJ194
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee carried on a money-lending business at Kualalampur in the Federated Malay States at all times material to this reference. In the course of the moneylending business immovable properties had been acquired and one of the questions was whether the assessee was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. He also owned rubber estates in the Federated Malay States and the further question was raised whether he was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. The Excess, Profits Tax Authorities and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held that he was assessable to excess profits in respect of both these sources of income. At the request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question:Where in the circumstances of the case, it is correct to include in the profits of the assessee's business, the income from the house Properties and rubber gardens in Malaya under Section 2(5) and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Satti Mutyalamma and ors. Vs. Vinjamuri Krishnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad351; (1945)1MLJ205
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point urged in these three appeals is about the order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to refund the court-fees paid on the appeal memoranda in the lower appellate Court on the ground that these are not suitable cases. The learned Judge has remanded all the three suits for taking fresh evidence and disposal. Under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act, the Court has no discretion in the matter and is bound to refund the court-fees when a remand is made on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, when any section or enactment is repealed and is re-enacted either with or without modifications, then the reference must be considered to have been made to the subsequent section that has been enacted. Reading Section 13 by substituting Order 41, Rule 23 for Section 351. of the Civil. Procedure Code of 1859, which has been repealed the Judge had no discretion and was bound to refu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »