Chennai Court March 1946 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: Someshwar H. Shelat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad430; (1946)1MLJ368
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Under the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Frocedure, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question of law:Whether a Special Officer of the Commercial Tax Department who has been empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 12(3) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance introduced by the amending Ordinance No. LIU of 1944, is a police officer within the meaning and for the purposes of Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance was inserted therein on the 13th December, 1944, by the amending Ordinance LIII of that year. The sub-section reads as follows:The Controller-General and such Inspectors or other officers as may be empowered by the Central or Provincial Government in this ...
R. Thirumalai Naicker by His Duly Constituted Agent V.S. Govindaraja N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ438
Rajamannar, J.1. This suit relates to the succession to the properties of one Thiru-vengada Nayakar who died on the 21st March, 1945. The plaintiff claims as his divided brother on the ground that the deceased did not leave any nearer heir like widow or child. The first defendant claims to be the second wife of the deceased and defendants 2 and 3 claim to be the son and the daughter respectively of the deceased by the first defendant. The defendants put forward an alternative case that even if the first defendant was not the lawfully married wife of the deceased, she was in any event his permanently kept concubine and the second defendant was the son born to the deceased by the first defendant and therefore as an illegitimate son he would be entitled to succeed to his putative father. It is obvious that the plaintiff's suit must fail if either case of the defendants is established.2. Issues 1 to 4 raise questions which are really necessary for the disposal of the suit. Issues 1 and 2 r...
Jaldu Manikyala Rao and ors. Vs. Nimmagadda Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad447; (1946)1MLJ443
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Masulipatam, dismissing the petition of the petitioners stating that they cannot be compelled to execute bonds for appearance and that they cannot be compelled to appear in Court merely because they happen to be parties to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not think the Magistrate was right in saying that he can compel parties in proceedings under Section 145 to appear in Court. It may be open to him to summon them as witnesses if they are wanted either as Court witnesses or witnesses for the other side. But then they will be attending Court as witnesses and not as party. Even under the preliminary order it is stated that the respondents were to appear either in person or by pleader. The Magistrate himself had permitted them to appear by pleader and that order has not been cancelled. The Magistrate therefore was not justified in insisting up...
Yenikokalva Gorla Narappa Vs. Yenikokalva Chinnareppa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad98; (1946)2MLJ115
Happel, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Anantapur, which was a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to take water to his land. While the suit was pending, the petitioner applied for an interim injunction against the defendants, and this was granted on an undertaking given by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit he would not dig a channel in the defendant's land. From the lower appellate Court's judgment the actual terms of the undertaking were:I shall not dig a channel. Neither myself nor my servants shall dig a channel newly for taking water to my land.The defendants complained that in contravention of this undertaking the petitioner had dug a channel. The District Munsiff held that the petitioner had contravened the undertaking and ordered his detention in a civil prison for a period of seven days. His order was upheld by the District Ju...
Somasundaram Pillai Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad95; (1946)2MLJ209
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was adjudged an insolvent on 6th August, 1930. He obtained an absolute order of discharge on nth December, 1932, but his property continued in the hands of the Official Receiver for the purpose of satisfying the proved debts rateably. One dividend was declared in March 1944, and has been substantially paid out. The second dividend is pending disbursement. The petitioner moved the Insolvency Court under Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to stay the disbursement of this dividend, claiming the benefits under Section 21 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938). Section 21 says:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the debts payable by any person who has been adjudicated an insolvent if prior to the coming into force of this Act a dividend has been declared out of his assets.It has been held that the words ' has been adjudicated an insolvent' refer to an adjudication continuing at any rate up to the date of the Act. The second part...
Adiraja Arasarada Kinnyakka Ballah Vs. Badeltu Naranappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad33; (1946)2MLJ111
Happell, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for delivery of the properties of a temple in South Kanara. The application for delivery under Section 78 was opposed by the petitioner who had been a hereditary trustee of the temple, on the ground that the Hindu Religious Endowments Board had no jurisdiction to appoint trustees excluding him as the right of appointment of trustees lay in the Jain Committee. The learned District Judge of South Kanara allowed the petition because, in his opinion, as the petitioner had taken no steps to set aside the order of appointment of trustees made by the Board, that order had become final.2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to raise the question in an application under Section 78 because the order of the Board was without jurisdiction. I do not accept this argument. It is perfectly clear that the order of the Board had become final as...
Kachikidambi Srinivasa Varadachariar Vs. Sri Manavala Mahamunigal Temp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad63; (1946)2MLJ112
Happell, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 331 of 1941, in the Court of the District Munsiff of Cuddalore. He brought the suit to recover money from a temple of which he had been the trustee and a decree was passed in his favour by the District Munsiff for a sum of Rs. 177-1-7. On appeal, however, the decree amount was reduced from Rs. 177-1-7 to Rs. 3-6-7 by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The suit was decided on questions of fact, but it is argued for the petitioner that he is entitled to maintain a revision petition because the suit which was tried by the District Munsiff as an original suit was in fact a small cause suit so that no appeal lay against the decree of the District Munsiff to the Additional Subordinate Judge.2. It has no doubt been held in several cases that, if a small cause suit is tried as an original suit and then on the basis that it was an original suit an appeal is preferred, an application to set aside the appellate decree will be ...
Andal Vaidyanathan Vs. Abdul Allam Vaidya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad446; (1946)1MLJ402
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant who is a Hindu non-Brahmin was married under the Special Marriage. Act (Act III of 1872) on the 13th May, 1934, to the respondent who was then a Hindu Brahmin. A daughter was born to the parties some two years later. In the month of May 1944, the respondent became a Mahomedan and called upon his wife to embrace the Mahomedan faith. She refused to do so and consequently the respondent filed a suit in the City Civil Court for a declaration that the marriage between him and the appellant had become dissolved. The principal Judge of the City Civil Court tried the case and came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Special Marriage Act: did not preclude the operation of the personal law of a Mahomedan and therefore, as the appellant bad refused to embrace her husband's religion, the marriage must be deemed to have been dissolved. The defendant has appealed.2. We have no hesitation in stating that the learned Principal Judge misconstrued...
Doodala Rudrayya Vs. Rajah Saheb Meharbhan I Dostan Sree Rajah Ravu Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad104; (1946)2MLJ80
Rajamannar, J.1. The respondent in this second appeal obtained a decree for arrears of rent due in respect of holding No. 88 in the village of Somapara in the Pittapur estate in L. S. No. 251 of 1938 on the file of the Deputy Collector, Coconada, against the appellant and others and in execution of this decree, an extent of one acre and 24 cents in that holding was brought to sale as property belonging to the present appellant and it was purchased by the respondent on the 26th October, 1941. The respondent and his alienee (the sixth defendant) were prevented from obtaining possession of the property and on the allegation that there was a trespass by the defendants subsequent to the delivery, the respondent brought a suit out of which the present appeal arises for recovery of possession of the entire property from defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 9.2. Though the entire extent of one acre and 24 cents was described as belonging to the appellant, it is now common ground that one acre of that ex...
In Re: T.S. Chockalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ361
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the11 Magistrate was justified in refusing to pay the expenses for the defence witnesses cited in C.C. No. 400 of 1945 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The petitioner has been prosecuted in this case for an offence punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years or fine. The Magistrate has held that this is a bailable offence and that the accused should pay the expenses of the defence witnesses and that the Court will not pay the same. He cites a decision of the Nagpur High Court under the Defence of India Rules in Ingley v. Emperor I.L.R. (1944) Nag. 813 for the position that offences punishable under the Defence of India Rules are bailable and states that as this is a bailable offence the accused himself should pay the expenses for the witnesses under Rule 366 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. That ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »