Chennai Court February 1946 Judgments
In Re: S. Pichai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad389; (1946)1MLJ331
ORDERKuppaswami Ayyar, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge considered that on the evidence on record the accused could not be convicted. But at the same time he ordered a retrial because the offence was of a serious nature affecting the public interest and he was of opinion that there was a lacuna in the prosecution evidence. He was not justified in doing so. The prosecution knew what they had to prove and that they have not proved. If there is a lacuna in the evidence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of the same. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty and, if the evidence is not sufficient to bring the guilt home to the accused, the Judge has no other course but to acquit him. Even if the offence was a serious one affecting the public interest, he was not justified in directing a retrial.2. The order of the Sessions Judge is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sala Mahammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad413; (1946)1MLJ437
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for having contravened the provisions of the Madras Rationing Order, Clause 4, read with Section 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. He is a wholesale dealer in rice and paddy at Tellicherry and the contravention consisted in selling paddy to two persons in Kallai, outside the Municipal limits of Tellicherry and he is said to have contravened by the sale, the provisions of Clause 4 of the Madras Rationing Order, which runs thus:No person other than an authorised wholesale distributor, an authorised retail distributor or an authorised establishment shall, on or after the rationing date, supply or offer or attempt to supply to any person any rationed article.In this case, it is not disputed that he is a person other than ' an authorised wholesale distributor, an authorised retail distributor, or an authorised establishment.' No doubt, he has a licence to sell paddy and rice, but then the expression...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.T. Elaya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad191; (1946)1MLJ449
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 and 9 in Preliminary Register Case No. 7 of 1944, on the file of the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Kallakurichi. They, along with three others, were charged with having committed dacoity of ground-nuts, transported in bandies and belonging to P.W. 14. The preliminary enquiry was held by the Magistrate, who, after sifting the evidence, found that it it was not reliable and discharged the accused. The matter was taken in revision to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot. He agreed with the Magistrate with regard to two of the accused and, with regard to these petitioners he thought that they ought not to have been discharged and that the matter should' not have been decided by the Committing Magistrate, but should have been left to a jury, with whose assistance the Sessions Judge will be trying the case, if it had been committed to the Sessions., It is to revise that order that this petition has been ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Kuttiali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad480
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted by the joint Magistrate of Tellicherry and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 on each count in respect of purchases made by them of paddy and rice, in contravention of Clause 7, Madras Rationing Order. Both the Courts have found that they did purchase and that they committed the offence. What is urged before me is that the expression 'rationed article' must be understood with reference to the use to which the article was to be put and not with reference to the place of the transaction in respect of the articles. The persons who are said to have purchased the articles are persons living outside the ration area, but the transaction took place within the rationed area. The object of the order is to prevent the violation of the rationing orders. The scheme of the order clearly indicates that it was intended to prevent unrestricted purchases and sales in the ration area. Therefore, purchases and sales in the rationed area were...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Pillai Vs. Muthathal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad457; (1946)1MLJ308
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The defendant has preferred this second appeal and he repeats the contention taken by him before the lower Courts that as the usufructuary-mortgages now sought to be redeemed by the plaintiff were evidenced by unstamped muris or cadjan leaves, no proof is admissible in support of the claim for redemption and that even if the defendant has admitted that he was holding under such mortgages, it would be of no avail to the plaintiff, as the admission would only be secondary evidence of the contents of the unstamped documents which not only could not be received in evidence, under Section 35 of the Stamp Act but should not even be acted upon for any purpose whatever. The decision in Thaji Beebi v. Tirumalaiappa Pillai (1907) 17 M.L.J. 308 : I.L.R. 30 Mad. 386 is strictly relied on in support of this position.2. As pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge, the unstamped muris must be with the defendant and he would not produce them. This by itself is not howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Tallapragada China Venkatanarasimharao Vs. Yedida Panchamukhi Anjaneya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad149; (1946)1MLJ351
Somayya, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 115 of 1940, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that the properties in the suit are the properties of the second defendant-respondent 3 and that the third defendant's right which is a half share in the properties is available to his creditors, on whose behalf the two plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit. The appellant China Venkatanarasimharao and the second defendant Kasturi Narasaraju are brothers and sons of one Chalapathi Rao. Narasaraju was given in adoption to his sister Satyavatamma in May 1930. The properties in suit were purchased in the names of the two brothers while they were' minors by their mother acting as their guardian in the year 1926. After the second defendant was given away in adoption into a family which is admitted to be a very wealthy one, the first defendant treated the property in question as solely his. But there was trouble about th...
Tag this Judgment!Somepalli Mutyalu Vs. Chittineni Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad452; (1946)1MLJ346
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, who brought the suit to recover a plot of land, is the appellant in this second appeal. Both the lower Courts dismissed his suit on the ground that he gave the letter, Ex. D-1, on 5th December, 1938, to the first defendant, stating that he had no connection whatever with the said property thereafter and that the first defendant can himself enjoy the property which had been given to his wife, the sister of the first defendant, by the father under a deed of gift in the year 1933. After this letter, the first defendant has been in possession of the property all along. Both the Courts have found that this letter was preceded by a mediation as the result of which the first defendant gave up a claim to recover a sum of Rs. 350 from the plaintiff, who in his turn agreed to give up his interest in this property which belonged to his wife, she having got it from her father. They applied the doctrine of part performance against the plaintiff.2. Mr. Desik...
Tag this Judgment!The Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. C. Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad396; (1946)1MLJ343
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, O.C.J.1. These two appeals are from a judgment of Bell, J., delivered in a second appeal. Appeal No. 51 of 1945 has been filed by the holder of a mortgage decree and Appeal No. 53 of 1945, by the purchaser of the property at the sale held by the Court in execution.2. The mortgage was executed by a Hindu father on behalf of himself and |nis three minor sons. They constituted a joint family. On the 24th June, 1935, in O.S. No. 91 of 1935, of the Court of the District Munsiff of Kumbakonam, the mortgagee obtained a preliminary decree and on the 13th November, 1935, a final decree. The price realised for the hypotheca in execution fell short of the amount due under the decree by Rs. 308-4-0. On the 7th January, 1941, the decree-holder filed an application for a personal decree against the father and his two surviving sons, limited so far as the sons were concerned to their interests in the family estate. One of the sons had died before the application was filed. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad66; (1946)1MLJ448
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The procedure to be followed, in such a case is as in a summons case. But unfortunately the Magistrate happened to issue a bailable warrant and having issued a bailable warrant, when the petitioner sought to have his personal attendance in Court dispensed with, the Magistrate dismissed his application observing that the personal appearance of the accused cannot be dispensed with as in this case the prosecution of the accused was.secured after the issue of a bailable warrant. The Magistrate was not justified in taking his stand on an incorrect order of his for refusing the application. Even in a summons case it will be open to the Magistrate to insist upon the personal appearance of the accused. But then he will have to give reasons for the same. Since he has not given any such reason in his order, it is set aside and the petition is remanded to h...
Tag this Judgment!isaka Venkatareddi and anr. Vs. Vemireddi Rangareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad491; (1946)1MLJ452
Happell, J.1. Two points arise for decision in this petition. The first is whether the decree passed by the District Judge of Nellore dismissing O.S. No. 19 of 1937, should be regarded as having been made under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Order 17, Rule 2; and the second is whether in any case, the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to make an application to have the decree set aside, or whether his only and proper remedy was not by way of appeal.2. The revision petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff in connection with the suit had been dismissed by this Court on the 9th April, 1945. Thereafter the suit was posted by the District Judge for further trial on the 16th April, 1945 and then, after two adjournments, on the 23rd April, 1945, a pleader on behalf of the plaintiff informed the Court that the respondent-plaintiff's pleader was ill and had asked him to apply for an adjournment. The adjournment was refused and the pleader then stated that he had instruc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »