Chennai Court August 1947 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.
Vadrevu Venkataratnam Vs. Rajah Saheb Meharban I Dostan, Sri Rajah Rav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad222; (1947)2MLJ492
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent in the appeal, the Maharajah of Pithapuram, who is the proprietor of a zamindari in East Godavari, claiming compensation for water for irrigating a second crop on the first defendant's (appellant's) inam land situated within the zamindari for fasli year 1347 (corresponding to A.D. 1937-38). It is common ground that the defendant is entitled to water free of charge in respect of the first crop. The learned District Munsiff of Peddapuram dismissed the suit; an appeal by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Coconada who decreed the suit; the defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court, which was dismissed by Wadsworth, J. This is an appeal pursuant to the Letters Patent by the defendant seeking to have the decree of the learned District Munsiff restored.2. The appellant's inam land is 48 acres in extent, including a tank of about 3 acres in the cen...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Perumal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad260; (1947)2MLJ327
Rajamannar, J.1. The accused in this case was charged with an offence under Section 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act. There was no direct proof that he consumed the liquor in any area in which the Act was in force.2. The trial Magistrate convicted him on the ground that he pleaded guilty but I suspect that what he admitted was that he was found in a drunken state in the prohibited area, which was all that was stated in the charge sheet.3. On that admission it would be quite legal for a Court to convict the accused if there was evidence on record that having regard to the distance between the place where he was found and the nearest place in a non-prohibited area, the accused must have consumed the liquor within the prohibited area itself. In this case, there was no such evidence.4. In the absence of such evidence, I do not think it proper that the accused should be convicted on his admission that he was found drunk within a prohibited area5. With these remarks, the appeals are dis...
Nagamma Bai and anr. Vs. S. Rajaram Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ344
Yahya Ali, J.1. The second and third defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff brought O.S. No. 40 of 1943 out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore to direct his brother the first defendant to render an account for the management of his estate during his minority and also to recover monies that may be found due and payable to him and for enforcing the security bond given to the Court when he was, appointed the plaintiff's guardian in O. P. No. 502 of 1915. The suit was dismissed, the learned Subordinate Judge holding that no charge was created on the properties by the security bond, that the suit was barred by limitation, that the plaintiff had attained majority in 1927 more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit and that the suit for accounts was not maintainable as the accounts had been already settled and satisfaction rendered. The plaintiff appealed in A.S. No. 222 of 1944 and the District Judge, Tanjore, set aside the decree ...
Pilla Venkata Reddi Vs. Korumilli Suryanarayanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ507
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, from a judgment of Somayya,, J., the power of the Official Receiver in insolvency under the Provincial Insolvency Act arises with respect to the sale of immoveable property of members of a joint family, a father and his four sons, the father being an insolvent. The Official Receiver sold some immoveable property by public auction in July 1941. What was purported to be sold was the entire interest in the property. It was property of which the insolvent, as a member of the joint family, was not the absolute owner, but was possessed only of his share, namely, it would appear, one-fifth. The property so sold was conveyed by the Official Receiver to the purchaser by a sale deed, dated the 7th July, 1941. The deed itself purports to convey the entire interest in the property. At the time of the sale it was ordinarily believed that the power, held by a manager of a joint Hindu family and also by a father, who was a member of a jo...
R.M.Y.R.M. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Bombay Life Assurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad298; (1947)2MLJ535
Horwill, J.1. One Ramanathan Chettiar insured his life for Rs. 10,000 with the defendant company. In order to secure this policy it was necessary for him to answer certain questions put by the company with regard to his health and other matters. In particular, he was asked whether in the past he had suffered from venereal diseases, high blood pressure, or any respiratory disease ; and to all these questions he answered that he had not. He was examined by two doctors, who found nothing amiss with him, except that more than half the surface of his body was covered with leucoderma. He was therefore classified as a first class life and a policy granted on the usual terms on the 19th May, 1938. He died on the 4th June, 1941. According to the terms of the policy he was entitled to receive the full policy amount unless he had wilfully made any misrepresentation or fraud at the time of applying for the policy which would render the policy void. The question that arose for decision in this suit...
Anthoni Udayar and ors. Vs. Velusami thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ420
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. These two revision cases are closely connected. The petitioners are the same in both. They were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ramnad for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. Nos. 253 and 257 of 1945 on his file and sentenced in each case to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.2. The charges against them in the two cases are founded on certain statements made by them in the written statement filed by them in C.C. No. 5 of 1945 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ramnad, in which case they were the accused. The material part of the written statement filed by them therein marked as Ex. A is as follows:Paragraph 14. P.W. 2's father and his senior paternal uncle were accused along with Chottachami Thevar, father-in-law of Mappilaisami Thevar, in a dacoity case, R.C. No. 5 of 1916 filed by accused 2. P.W. 3, Tirumal Kone's wife is being kept by Mappilaisami.Thevar fo...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagalla Seshagiri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ198; (1948)2MLJ124
Rajamannar, J.1. In this appeal by the Grown, the decision depends upon the construction of 27-A of the rules made under Section 20(2)(f) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and its application to the facts of the case, which are not in dispute.2. The Sanitary Inspector employed by the Guntur Municipality sent his maistri on 30th July, 1946, to the shop of the accused to find out if accused was selling gingelly oil. The result of the inquiry was that the accused said that he had groundnut oil with him. The Inspector took from him a sample of the oil. He sent the oil for analysis and the Government Analyst, Guindy, reported that the sample contained 25 per cent. of groundnut oil and 75 per cent. of gingelly oil. The accused was thereupon prosecuted for an offence of contravening Rule 27-A which is as folows:No person shall sell or have in his possession for the purpose of sale a mixture of gingelly oil with groundnut oil, safflower oil or any other oil. The accused in his state...
In Re: Prem Raj Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad177; (1947)2MLJ324
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 3(1) and 18(1) of the Pawnbroker's Act (XXIII of 1943). The evidence on which the conviction was based was that on the 24th February, 1946, P. W. 2, went to the shop of the accused and wanted money on a silver waist cord. The accused said he would buy it outright for Rs. 5 but P. W. 2, refused to sell it and he was prepared only to pledge it. The accused accepted the article on pledge for Rs. 5 for a month on an interest of Re. 0-8-0. This is all the evidence in the case. There is no evidence that the accused took any other article on pledge. Section 3(1) of the Act says 'No person shall carry on or continue to carry on business as a pawnbroker unless he has obtained a pawnbroker's licence under the Act.' 'Pawnbroker' is defined as a person who carries on the business of taking goods and chattels in pawn for the loan. In my opinion the Act clearly contemplates a per...
N.K. Segu Abdul Khadir Hadjiar Vs. A.K. Murthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ482
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed to the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in his capacity as the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called 'the Control Act').2. The relevant facts are the following. The applicant is the landlord of No. 87 Thambu Chetty Street, Madras, of which premises the respondent is a tenant of the ground-floor portion, where he resides with his father and some brothers. Prior to June 1946, there appears to have been disputes between the parties regarding rent and its payment. These disputes were terminated in July 1946, by payment of the rent due. It is said that the respondent was in default in regard to the following two months' rent, July and August, 1946 ; but nothing arises regarding those months. In respect of rent for the months of September and October, 1946,, the applicant's case is that the respondent w...
In Re: E.K. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad268; (1947)2MLJ380
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on three separate counts; and on each count, he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. The charge relates to three offences committed within the course of a year, from the nth December, 1945, to the 16th April, 1946, all of the same description. The gravamen of the charge is that the appellant used to approach persons desirous of obtaining licences for the driving of cars and other vehicles and promise them, that if they would give him a sum of money, (Rs. 35 in one case) he would procure them licences without the necessity of their undergoing any test. The customary procedure to be adopted in a genuine application would be for the applicant to obtain a challan for Rs. 2 and submit an application with that challan, a photograph, and a med...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »