Chennai Court September 1945 Judgments
In Re: Duraiswami Koundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad179; (1945)2MLJ455
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of South Arcot of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to death. * * * * * *2. [After discussing the evidence and confirming the conviction and sentence their Lordships added]:3. Before closing this judgment mention ought to be made of the manner in which the committing Magistrate questioned the accused. The object of questioning an accused by the Court under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to give the accused an opportunity of explaining the circumstances that appear against him in the evidence. Unfortunately, since the Privy Council decision in Dwarkanath Varma v. The King-Emperor (1933) 64 M.L.J. 466 , Courts have cultivated the habit of summarising the whole evidence and asking the accused what he has to say with regard to it. A summary at considerable length tends to defeat the object of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code; because the attent...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Subramania Chettiar Vs. the Collector of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad184; (1945)2MLJ559
Koman, J.1. The appellant was the owner of a premises in Ward No. 7 of the Goimbatore Municipality. The premises consisted of a house in the occupation of tenants. This property was acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act (Act No. I of 1894). At the appellant's request, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application for a reference made by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act was not made within the time prescribed in the proviso to that section and that therefore the reference was barred by limitation. The learned Judge also held that on the basis of the materials placed before him the appellant had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer a fair and equitable price.2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation is not correct and that the Sub-Judge had no power...
Tag this Judgment!Divi Seshacharyulu Vs. Divi Lakshminarayanacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad105; (1945)2MLJ542
Yahya Ali, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 408 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsiff of Masulipatam is the petitioner. He applied by C.M.P. No. 1827 of 1944 to amend the plaint and that application was refused by the District Munsiff and the present petition arises out of that order.2. The first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. They constituted a joint family, and it is agreed between the parties that they divided. The plaintiff's case is that the partition took place about 1928, while according to the defendant the plaintiff left the village as early as 1885 abandoning his share in the family property. Ever since, the first defendant has been in enjoyment of the entire property. At present we are not concerned with the details of the defendant's version. The plaintiff's case is that although the partition took place in 1928 some partition lists were prepared on 15th April, 1930, and that, the properties which fell to his share were entrusted by him to the first de...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadeesam Pillai Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad214; (1946)1MLJ23
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. The respondent has obtained a decree for the possession of the village of Kaduveli which is a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate. The appellant who is the tenant claims that the suit lands are situated in an estate governed by the Madras Estates Land Act and that he has occupancy rights therein and cannot be evicted. The trial Court has held that, whatever was the position before the amendment of the Madras Estates Land Act by the Madras Act, XVIII of 1936, the lands must now be deemed to be part of an estate under the Estates Land Act. It has also negatived the claim of the plaintiff that these are private lands within the definition in Section 3(10) of that Act. But it has held that the defendant is not entitled to resist the plaintiff's claim for possession because the occupancy right in these lands is held not by the defendant but by a previous tenant. In appeal it is contended that this finding regarding the subsistence of the occupancy right of...
Tag this Judgment!Soore Venkatappayya Vs. Yalavarthi Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad72; (1945)2MLJ405
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff whose legal representative is the appellant brought a suit in 1940 on a promissory note dated 20th February, 1933. Admittedly there were payments on the 25th December, 1934, and on the 19th November, 1937, but these are payments which according to the Law of Limitation at the time of (he institution of the suit would not save the suit from being barred. On the 9th August, 1939, the defendant applied to the Debt Conciliation Board for relief and on the 1st June, 1940, he made a statement before the Board undertaking to pay seven creditors of whom the plaintiff was one at the rate of seven annas in the rupee if he was granted four months time from that day. The Advocate for the appellant contended in the Courts below and in this Court that this statement could be utilised to found a claim based on Section 25, Sub-section (3) of the Indian Contract Act. The short answer to this contention is that when the defendant made that offer, four of the seven creditor...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Narayanaswami Nattar Vs. M.K. Manicka Nattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad86; (1945)2MLJ482
Yahya Ali, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 481 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Vellore, is the petitioner. The suit was filed in 1939. It was a suit for partition of joint family properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 23rd February, 1942, and the Court appointed a commissioner for talcing accounts and for partitioning the properties. No appreciable progress seems to have been achieved for over two years. On 26th May, 1944, the parties to the suit filed a memo in Court stating that they had all executed a muchilika to panchayatdars for settling the suit and praying that the documents filed by the parties into Court might be returned to them for being placed before the panchayatdars. This was signed by the parties and a further endorsement was made thereon that defendants 3 and 4 had no objection to the handing over of the account books to the plaintiff. The Court appears to have asked for the memo being stamped so that it could be treated as a petition,...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Madina Saheb Vs. the Province of Madras Represented by the Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad113; (1945)2MLJ522
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He was a contractor under the Public Works Department and entered into a contract (Ex. D-18) on the 29th February, 1940, for doing some work on the Nidadavole-Chettipet Road. It is said that during the execution of this work a cooly named Subbadu slipped and fell into a canal and got drowned on the 9th April, 1940. This accident was reported to the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, under Section 10-B of the said Act. The Commissioner issued a notice on the 6th May, 1940, to the Chief Engineer to the Government to submit a statement of particulars and also make the necessary deposit as provided under Section 10-A (2) of the Act. The Chief Engineer replied disclaiming liability to pay any compensation on the ground that the cooly accidentally fell into the canal and died on account of epileptic fits that he was suffering from. Subsequently, however, on further correspondence between him and the Commissioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Varisai Ibrahim (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kadir Ibrahim, Son of Nalle Ib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad122; (1945)2MLJ484
Somayya, J.1. Two questions are raised in this second appeal; one is whether the suit is barred by limitation and the other is whether Ex. D-2 was taken benami for the benefit of Nalle Ibrahim, the plaintiff's father. Nalle Ibrahim had three sons, one by the first wife and two by the second wife. Ex. D-2 is a usufructuary mortgage taken in the names of the three sons, Naina Mohamed, the son by the first wife, Kadir Ibrahim the plaintiff, and Mohamed Ibrahim, the sons by the second wife. The sum secured was Rs. 1,825 but it is stated that a sum of Rs. 100 was not paid and the real consideration was Rs. 1,725. The document was executed in the name of the father for and on behalf of his three sons just mentioned. At that time the eldest son was about twelve years of age, the plaintiff was about six years old and his younger brother was about five years of age. The mortgagors who executed Ex. D-2 later on sold the property to a third party and the purchaser had to pay the sum of Rs. 1,725 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nalluri Rangacharyulu Vs. Kondamadugula Vajjala Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad94; (1945)2MLJ538
Yahya Ali, J.1. The question that is common to both these petitions is whether the prayer asked for in the plaints in O.S. Nos. 178 and 179 of 1943, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Guntur, amounted really to asking for a declaration that the orders complained of were ultra vires and illegal or whether they amounted to asking also for a restoration of the respective plaintiffs to the archaka's office.2. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that for ascertaining this the mere form of the prayer will not be looked into but the substance thereof. In the plaint in O.S. No. 178 the prayer is for a declaration that the order dated 18th December, 1940, by the trustee and the order dated 12th July, 1942, of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board regarding the plaintiff's dismissal are ultra vires of their powers and wholly illegal, unjust and void and hence do not affect the right of the plaintiff to the office of archaka in the suit temple. This idea of a declar...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway by Its General Manager Vs. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad227; (1946)1MLJ68
Shahabuddin, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in a small cause suit for Rs. 662-5-0 claimed as damages in respect of a consignment of 33 tins and one box of bleaching powder handed over to the Nizam's State Railway at Secunderabad for delivery to the respondent at Chirala, a railway station on the M.S.M. Railway, the petitioner. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that of the consignment received by the Nizam's State Railway, only nine tins of the bleaching powder were delivered to him at Chirala railway station and that the rest of the stuff was damaged in transit on the petitioner railway. This railway admitted that the damage was caused by fire while the wagon containing the goods was in the goodsyard of one of its railway stations. But the liability was denied on the ground that the fire was not caused owing to the negligence of the M.S.M. Railway. Its defence was that the tins of bleaching powder were loaded at Secund...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »