Chennai Court July 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.
Sinna Subba Goundan Vs. M. Rangai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad141; (1945)2MLJ384
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed a suit for partition and for possession of his half share in the properties after setting aside certain alienations. The first defendant is his father who was adjudicated an insolvent on 25th June, 1935. The Official Receiver, Coimbatore, is the second defendant. The sixth defendant is the plaintiff's brother. The fourth defendant claims the properties comprised in this second appeal, which are described in item 1 of the B schedule, under a purchase by him from the Official Receiver on 18th December, 1935. The plaintiff states that the property is joint family property belonging to him and the father and that he is entitled to a half share therein, and that the Official Receiver could not sell his half share to the fourth defendant. The District Munsiff accepted his claim and gave him a decree for a one-third share as there were two other co-parceners, namely, the father and the sixth defendant. O...
In Re: Madiga Chinna Obigadu Alias Chinna Madigodu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad523; (1945)2MLJ249
Mockett, J.1. The accused in Sessions case No. 6 of 1945,on the file of the Court of Session of Kurnool Division was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge for the murder of one Kottapu Narsi Reddi.[His Lordship after discussing the evidence, held]2. Consequently the conviction and sentence will be confirmed and the appeal dismissed.3. We observe that the learned Judge when dealing with the evidence of the constable in paragraph 8-E of his Judgment says:It has been elicited in his cross-examination that he did not meticulously observe all the provisions of house searches in this case and that he did not search himself or the panchay atdars before going in.4. That observation is founded on an answer given in cross-examination by the constable: I did not observe the precautions laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code for the search of the house. I did not search myself or the three other persons before we went into the house.5. Neither earned Counsel before us ar...
Srinivasa Tholappachar Vs. K. Seshagiri Rao, Sale Officer to the Co-op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad482; (1945)2MLJ180
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant has lost in all the three Courts below and we see no reason why he should succeed here.2. The appellant is the owner of land in the Bellary district. He leased it to one Ayyaswami Pillai for the purpose of sugarcane cultivation. The lessee was a member of the Hospet Sugarcane Growers Co-operative Society and was indebted to the society. An award was passed against him under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, and in execution of the award the Cooperative Society attached the crop on the land leased to Ayyaswami Pillai. The date of the attachment was the 19th March, 1941. At the time of the attachment a sugarcane crop was growing on the land. The award was forwarded to the sale officer of the Co-operative Department for the purpose of execution. On the 25th March, 1941, in the execution proceedings, the appellant...
Pattiam Veettil Monokki Sankaram Nambiar Vs. Kottayam Bank by Its Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad304; (1946)1MLJ53
Shahabuddin, J.1. The point for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether proceedings started against a director of a company under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act can be continued after his death by bringing his legal representatives on record.2. The petitioner started proceedings under Section 235 against the directors of a company in liquidation one of whom, Krishnan Nambudiri, died before the enquiry was over. The petitioner then filed the application out of which this civil revision petition arises to bring the respondents on record as the heirs of Krishnan Nambudiri. This application was opposed on the ground that it could not be continued after the death of the deceased director. The learned District Judge of Tellicherry relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Official Liquidators, Mufassil Bank v. Jugal Kishore I.L.R. (1939) All. 6 accepted this contention and dismissed the petitioner's application.3. In Official Liquidators, Mufassil Bank ...
Annalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. Shanmugam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad47; (1945)2MLJ371
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura for the redemption of an alleged mortgage by conditional sale and in the alternative for a decree for specific performance of an agreement to resell. Admittedly the suit on the basis of the alleged mortgage did not lie by reason of the proviso inserted in Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act by the Amending Act of 1929. The learned Subordinate Judge found, however, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance. The defendants have appealed.2. On the 13th October, 1921, the first plaintiff's elder brother, Arumugam, the first plaintiff and his younger brother, the second plaintiff, for himself and his minor son, the fifth plaintiff mortgaged 58 59 acres of agricultural land to one Viswanatha Aiyar to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 bearing interest at 10 1/2 per cent, per annum. On the 12th March, 1929, the first plaintiff, as the manager...
Samanthan Karakkattitathil Chandukutti Nambiar and Anr. Vs. Ammad Kutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad87; (1945)2MLJ351
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants filed a suit for rent due under a registered marupat, dated 7th December, 1928, to the plaintiffs as representing the jenmi's interest. It is common ground that the documents under which the land was held provides for payment of rent in kind. The only question argued in appeal is whether the Courts below were right in fixing the commutation rate with reference to the terms of Section 51(2) of the Malabar Tenancy Act or whether plaintiffs are entitled to the market price of the produce as on the date of the plaint. Section 51(2) runs as follows:Where any rent, michavaram or renewal fee payable under this Act is paid or is to be paid in money, in whole or in part, paddy, cocoanuts, arecanuts and pepper shall be valued, for the purpose of determining the sum due, at the average market price of the previous five years as published under Sub-section (1).The contention of the appellants is that this is not a case in which rent payable under the Act is paid or i...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Vadakattu Venkata Narayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1945
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ130
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the two accused in C.C. No. 10 of 1944 on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge of East Godavari. The appeal raises the question of the proper construction of Section 6, Sub-section (2), Clause (b)(ii) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance. The first and second accused were respectively the proprietor of and the salesman employed in a shop known as the City Emporium in Coconada. The charge against them was that they had sold a hat for Rs. 7 which had been sold by the producer for Rs. 5-4-0 or even less and so had added more than 20 per cent. to the cost price in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance. The Howrah Hat Manufacturing Company of Delhi had agreed to supply the City Emporium with 6 Ajanta Hats, the hat in question in this case is one of these 6, for Rs. 63 per dozen F.O.R. Coconada. It transpired, however, that the hats could...
Kolimi Mahabub Sahib and ors. Vs. Sri Sidheswaraswami Temple at Devala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad496; (1945)2MLJ200
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. Defendants 26 onwards, who are the Muhammadan residents of a village called Kalakada in the Chittoor district, are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit is a representative one by the Hindu residents of the village for a declaration of their right to pass along the bit of the Chittoor-Cuddappah trunk road in Kalakada village in procession to the accompaniment of music notwithstanding the existence of a mosque on that road. The District Munsiff gave the plaintiffs a decree declaring their right, subject however to three conditions : (1) that the processions do not obstruct the lawful user of the highway by other members of the public; (2) that the processions are subject to all lawful orders passed by the Magistrate and the Police; and (3) that musical accompaniments of the processions should stop playing, within the limits of one chain on either side of the compound walls of the suit mosque at the five times of public congregational prayers in the mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›