Chennai Court August 1944 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.
G. Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Ramasami Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad9
ORDERByers, J.1. Accused 1 is an amin who is alleged to have intentionally made a false return on an execution process entrusted to him at the instigation of a party to the litigation with intent to cause injury to some other persons, and the question which now arises for decision is whether this was an offence punishable Under Section 167 or Section 193, Penal Code. If the former section is applicable, then no complaint is required Under Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C.; but if the latter section is applicable, then the complaint at the instance of a party is not maintainable. The process was issued in the course of proceedings in execution of a decree of a District Munsif's Court and the execution proceedings' were adjourned pending the return of the process. It was the amin's duty to remove an offending obstruction on the property in suit and to put the decree-holder in possession before returning the process to the Court, but he did neither of these things, and he returned the proc...
Krishnaveni Ammal and anr. Vs. M.D. Soundararajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad53
Mockett, Offg. C.J. 1. In these connected appeals respondent 1 filed a suit O.S. No. 109 of 1941 against Elayaperumal Naicker as defendant 1, his wife Rule Balammal as defendant 2 and his daughter Krishnaveni Ammal, as defendant 4. There was also a claim against one Nataraja Pillai, defendant 4, Defendant 1's clerk relating to the transfer of a motor-car. Defendants 2 and 8 appeal and so far as they' are concerned the form of the suit was for a declaration that certain alienations made in favour of the wife and daughter respectively were benami in nature for the purpose of defrauding Defendant 1's creditors. The learned trial Judge, Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 3 appeals in Order S.A. No. 79 of 1942 and defendant 2 in Order S.A. No. 8 of 1943. The form of the plaint, and this is made clear by the prayer, is for a declaration that the properties transferred to the appellants were benami in nature. Paragraph 5 states that the transact...
Jonnakuti Annamma Vs. Kandavalli Kanakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad88a
ORDERHorwill, J.1. A suit was brought in the Panchayat Court of Ellore for Rs. 50 agreed to be paid by the defendant in lieu of a nagaram. A question of limitation was raised which was considered by the Panchayat Court, which came to the conclusion on the evidence adduced that the suit was not barred by limitation. On a petition Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act, the learned District Munsif discussed at some length in para. 5 of his judgment the evidence relating to the question of limitation and held that on the evidence the suit was barred by limitation. He then went on to say:I find that the Panchayat Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity and the decree is clearly unjust; that is to say, he alloyed the petition on all the grounds set out in the second and third classifications found in Section 73. The Panchayat Court certainly did not act unjustly, illegally, or with material irregularity, or without juris...
Srila Sri Ambalavana Desika Pandara Sannathi, Trustee of Peria Avidaia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad26
ORDERHorwill, J.1. These revision petitions concern a dispute between an inamdar and his tenants, who have admittedly under the amendment of 1936 acquired occupancy rights. The landlord, who is the petitioner here, put in an application to the Deputy Collector of Pattukottai Division Under Section 74, Estates Land Act, asking the Deputy Collector to take action under that section for the appraisement of the crop and division of the produce. The procedure to be adopted by the Collector Under Section 75 upon receiving such an application was followed; and the Deputy Collector deputed a Revenue Inspector to make the necessary inquiry. The ryots, in written statements of their claim, stated that they had not been paying rent and that none was due from them. If an objection is taken during such inquiry before the deputed officer that the rent is not payable by division or appraisement or that no rent is payable, the officer so deputed has no authority to consider that question himself. He h...
Kovuru Kalappa Devara Vs. Kumar Krishna Mitter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad10
King, J.1. The appellant here is the endorsee of a document, Ex. A, and at the same time the assignee of all rights under the original cause of action under that document. It is common ground that the appellant's assignor and the respondent had dealings in mica in 1930. The respondent purchased mica From the appellant's predecessor and was in the habit of selling this mica in England and sending cheques to the appellant's predecessor to pay for it. Of one of these cheques he stopped payment. Subsequently in 1933 Ex. A was executed in which the respondent undertook to pay to the appellant's predecessor after two years the sum of Rs. 12,600 with a certain interest 'after deductions as would be agreed upon.' It was the claim based upon this document with its original cause of action that was assigned to the appellant in 1938. The learned District Judge has dismissed the suit and the appellant now appeals. Two main difficulties stand in the way of the appellant and are the reasons why the ...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. P. Rangai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad42
1. The petitioner's suit on a promissory note dated 26th June 1940 was dismissed because the document was not properly stamped. The promissory note was stamped with two one anna stamps, which would be correct if the promissory note were one payable on demand. The relevant clause of the document runs thus, 'I shall pay to you or to your order within two years the said sum. ' This must mean that the promisor is allowed two years within which to pay the money and within which the promisee cannot enforce the debt. Mr. Ramanatha Aiyer argues that as the wording is 'within two years' and not 'after two years,' it must mean that the plaintiff is entitled to demand the money at any time within two years and that the document is therefore really a promissory note payable on demand. If the debt could be demanded at any time within two years, then the words 'within two years' would have no meaning at all. It seems clear to me that these words were introduced to give the debtor time within which t...
Siddareddigari Changal Reddi and ors. Vs. Mohammal Chordia and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad133; (1945)1MLJ143
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants were the legal representatives of the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 1 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor and the appeal arises out of proceedings by way of restitution consequent on the modification of the decree passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1927 under the orders of the appellate Court. The suit was for the recovery of the additional amount paid by the plaintiff over and above what he was bound to pay in respect of the property. He claimed in respect of the amount sought to be recovered a charge on several villages comprised in the Karvetnagar Zamindari. The decree passed on 30th March, 1929, by the Subordinate Judge's Court was for Rs. 73,000 and odd. Guntapalli was one of the 13 villages comprised in Schedule B of the plaint over which a charge was claimed and under the decree the charge was given over that village and a few others to the extent of three-tenths only of the decree amount. After the decree was passed the vil...
In Re: Challur Seshayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad8
ORDERByers, J.1. The only question which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence of his guilty knowledge or fraudulent intention so as to render his possession of the false weights punishable Under Section 266, Penal Code. When his shop was visited by a police officer, the weights for half a seer and quarter of a seer were tested and found deficient by 1/2 tola and 1/3 tola respectively. These deficiencies are approximately 4 1/4 per cent, and 5 1/2 per cent. The petitioner's learned advocate relies on the decision in Abdul Latifi v. Emperor : AIR1943Mad589 but with all respect to the learned Judge, I consider that the only way in which know-edge and fraudulent intention can be proved n such a case is by the possession and the use of the false weights concerned. It is not the petitioner's case that the weights were very old ones which he had neglected to verify, or that they were new ones which he had accepted as correct; they were weights which he had ...
Krishna Ayyar Vs. Gomathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad33
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly with the main purpose of obtaining a declaration, that the adoption of defendant 2 is untrue in fact and, in any case, invalid. The plaintiff is the son of the sister of one Sundaram Ayyar, who died in April 1925. Besides his sister, defendant 6, Sundaram Ayyar left a widow, defendant 1, and is said to have left a will by the terms of which he authorized his widow to adopt a son. It is the case of the widow, defendant 1, and the alleged adopted son, defendant 2, that defendant 2 was, in fact, adopted on 13th September 1925 in pursuance of this authority so given. The plaintiff's case is that there was no actual adoption on 13th September 1925, or at any other time, and that the will itself is not genuine, and, therefore, there was no such authority conferred by Sundaram Ayyar on his widow. The plaintiff states that he was born on 16th July 1920 and therefore,...
In Re: Angappa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad52
ORDERByers, J.1. On the night of 25th July 1943, petitioner 1 was found in possession of half a cake of opium which he was carrying on behalf of petitioner 2 to the latter's opium shop at Barghur; and when asked to account for his possession, he produced a transport license issued in the name of petitioner 2, who is a licensed vendor. Petitioner 1 is a debarred person within the meaning of condition 14 in the vendor's license. Both the petitioners were convicted for offences punishable Under Section 9 (b), Opium Act, petitioner 1 for transporting the drug without a valid license, and petitioner 2 for employing a debarred person contrary to condition 14 of his license. So far as petitioner 1 is concerned, it is stated in the conditions governing the sale of opium that no person who has been debarred by the Collector from bidding at the sales of abkari or opium shops shall be employed in any capacity in connexion with management or the working of shops or depots, licensed for the sale of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »