Chennai Court October 1945 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: Valmiganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad102; (1945)2MLJ541
ORDERChandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. Two objections are taken to the conviction in this case. One is that when the accused was charged under Section 359 of the District Municipalities Act and fined Rs. 10 for obstructing a Municipal servant in the discharge of his duty, the other charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for hurt caused to P.W. 1 does not lie. I do not agree. The one offence is not involved in the other; and, if in the course of the obstruction that is offered, hurt is caused, the accused can be charged separately for the two offences. I however think that, having made up his mind to proceed against the accused under Section 323, it would have been proper for the Magistrate to have dropped the charge under Section 359, in circumstances of this case. For this reason, and not because on any ground of impropriety or illegality, I set aside the conviction and the sentence under Section 359 of the District Municipalities Act.2. It is argued on the strength of the decisio...
Chinnathayi Alias Veeralakshmi Ammal Vs. V. Kulasekharapandiya Naicker ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad353; (1946)1MLJ164
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Three of these seven appeals, namely, Nos. 413, 230 and 301 of 1943, raise questions with regard to the succession to the zamindari of Bodi-naickanoor in the Madura District, which from ancient times has always been regarded as impartible and was declared so to be by the Madras Impartible Estates. Act, 1904. Two of the appeals Nos. 230 and 302 of 1943, call for a decision on the question whether the village of Boothipuram, which admittedly formed part of the estate before 8th May, 1890, became the private property of a member of the joint family. Three of the appeals, Nos. 302, 355 and 356 of 1943, relate to the present title to certain pannai (home-farm) lands and buildings thereon which had also belonged to the estate. There were four suits, which were tried together by the District Judge of Madura, who gave his findings in two judgments, one dated 22nd February, 1943 and the other dated 7th April, 1943. The appeals can conveniently be dealt with in ...
The Official Receiver of Vizagapatam (Mandavilli Mohana Rao) Vs. Billa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad202; (1946)1MLJ1
Rajamannar, J.1. These four appeals are from four decrees and a common judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam dismissing four suits, O.S. Nos. 65 of 1941., 3 of 1942, 46 of 1943 and 47 of 1943 instituted by the Official Receiver, Vizagapatam, as the interim receiver appointed in I.P. No. 5 of 1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole, for declarations that certain sales of bags of paddy to the contesting defendant in each case are invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and for the recovery of the bags of paddy alleged to have been sold, or, in the alternative, for payment of the price of such bags. Several pleas were raised in defence by the contesting defendants, but the suits did not proceed to trial on the merits. The Subordinate Judge took up for hearing a preliminary issue to the effect ' whether the plaintiff as interim receiver can sue third parties who dispute his right' and held against the plaintiff on the issue and as a result dismissed all the suit...
In Re: M.K. Thiagaraja Bhagavathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad271; (1946)1MLJ42
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On 8th November, 1944, one C.N. Lakshmikanthan was stabbed while riding in a rickshaw in General Collins Road, Madras. He received three wounds and died as the result in the Madras General Hospital in the early hours of the next day. Eight persons were charged with being concerned in the murder and were committed for trial at the High Court Sessions in April of this year. All the accused were charged with being parties to a conspiracy to murder Lakshmikanthan. The first and second accused were also charged with having committed the murder. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth accused were charged with abetment as well as with conspiracy. During the trial a nolle prosequi was entered in respect of the fifth accused and thereupon he was discharged. The Jury unanimously found the first and second accused guilty on the conspiracy charge and of having committed the murder. By a majority of 6 to 3 they found the third and fourth accused guilty...
In Re: Thambi Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad157; (1945)2MLJ537
ORDERChandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. Only a technical objection has been taken to the correctness of the convictions in this case under the Gaming Act, but I am afraid the objection has to be allowed. The warrant issued under Section 5 does not set out that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who issued it, had reason to believe that the house in question was being used as a ' common gaming house.' All that it states is that information had been laid before him that gambling was going on in house No. 67, Iyengar Street. It is only if there is a proper compliance with the terms of Section 5 that the presumption under Section 6 will apply. As a matter of fact, there is no proof in this case, apart from the presumption that can be raised under Section 6, that the house was used for the profit or gain of the person owning or occupying it. In the circumstances, the presumption does not arise and, in the absence of specific evidence, the convictions have to be set aside.2. It is desirable that o...
Anne Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Anne Bhujangayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad104; (1945)2MLJ536
Bell, J.1. The petitioner was the respondent in certain arbitration proceedings at the conclusion of which he desired to set aside the award which presumably had been made against him. He therefore filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying that the award should be set aside. He filed it as an ordinary application or petition and paid in accordance with Article 1(b) of Schedule II of the Madras Court-Fees (Amendment) Act, a fee of twelve annas.2. Objection was raised by the authorities to this fee and the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in whose Court the proceedings took place made an order on the 29th March, 1945, that the applicant should pay a court-fee of Rs. 100. Hence this petition.3. In his order the learned Judge dealt with the points made by the petitioner's counsel and agreed with him that Article 18, Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act which prescribes a fee of Rs. 100 in certain circumstances applies only to applications made under paragraphs 17 ...
Yarlagadda Venkanna Vs. Ramineni Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad172; (1945)2MLJ564
Bell, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings following a decree passed dated 3rd March, 1932, for Rs. 2,150 being damages due from the judgment-debtor for breach of contract. A number of execution petitions were filed, the last one being disposed of on 17th December, 1943. It was dismissed on failure of the decree-holder to file certain papers. The execution petition out of which this appeal arises was filed on 22nd April, 1944, and was therefore outside the period of twelve years provided by Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code although within three years from the date of disposal of the execution petition above-mentioned. The District Munsiff considering these facts found that the present execution petition could not be considered to be a continuation of the 1943 petition which had been plainly dismissed for default, and that, as it was outside the period of twelve years, it was time barred. He therefore dismissed it.2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge allowed evidence...
In Re: S.R. Viraraghava Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad97; (1945)2MLJ539
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 3(1) of the Madras Essential Articles Restricted Acquisition Order, 1943. This order came into force in the Kumbakonam municipality on 14th March, 1944. When the Rationing Officer tried to get a statement from the accused as to how much of paddy he had in his house for his use, he learnt that certain paddy had been brought from Perambur in Tanjore taluk. The paddy was brought from Perambur to Kumbakonam on 2nd April, 1944, after the date on which this order came into force in Kumbakonam. The petitioner admitted these-facts and he was accordingly convicted. What is urged is that it is only an acquisition subsequent to the date on which the order came into force that would amount to an offence and that no such acquisition had been made by the petitioner.2. On the facts there is no dispute. There is evidence to show that the petitioner purchased the paddy at Perambur early in March, and...
In Re: C. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad96; (1945)2MLJ546
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The only question for determination is whether sanction is necessary before the accused could be prosecuted. The prosecution was at the instance of a maistry of scavengers employed in the municipality of Chicacole, and the petitioner, the accused, was a Health Officer of that Municipality. The scavengers alleging that they had some grievances when the salary was being distributed one evening, instead of receiving the salary they made a hubbub and created sor.e disturbance. The Health Officer was put out and when he noticed the maistry whose duty he thought it was to prevent these people from creating trouble, abused him and took him to task for not having prevented the people from creating disturbance, and is also said to have beaten him. That is the gist of the complaint. For the accused it was stated that a prosecution like this cannot be launched without sanction. It was pleaded in the lower Court that sanction was required under Section 197 of the Crimin...
Aravapalli Subbi Setti and anr. Vs. Burle Lakshminarasamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad88; (1945)2MLJ556
Rajamannar, J.1. The same question arises in both these second appeals, a question of limitation. Though I listened to an interesting and exhaustive argument from Mr. V. Suryanarayana for the appellants, the cases appear to be directly governed by the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Bank of Upper India, Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Robert Hercules Skinner (1942) 2 M.LJ. 559 : I.L.R. (1942) Lah. 686. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows : The plaintiffs in the two suits sued for the recovery of the balance of money due to each of them under two mortgages dated 7th August, 1924, by sale of one item out of the properties secured by the deeds (Exs. P-1 and P-2) respectively. The contesting defendant claims title to this item under a deed of sale dated 28th April, 1926, from the mortgagor. The suits were brought in 1939 and would prima facie be barred by limitation. The plaintiffs, however, rely upon an acknowledgment made by the mortgagor in respect...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »