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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. A.V. Harihara Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad219; (1947)2MLJ466
Rajamannar, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate, Ariyalur, convicted the respondent who was the accused in C.C. No. 198 of 1946 on his file of an offence under Section 159(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act punishable under Section 207(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 ; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. There was an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, and he set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. The Crown appeals.2. The prosecution was in respect of an alleged encroachment on a street called Vellala Street in Ariyalur town. The encroachment was in the shape of a tiled shed and a big masonry arch. These were part of the house of which the accused was an occupier. The grounds on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted the accused were:(1) that as there was an owner residing in the town the action of the District Board in prosecuting the occupier 'cannot be regarded as being consistent wit...
V.Rm.A.S. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. A.Sp.S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ82
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a decree for payment of Rs. 1,15,287-5-9 to the respondent passed in O.S. No. 102 of 1934, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta.2. The suit was brought for recovery of moneys due to the respondent in respect of a deposit said to have been made in a Nattukottai Chetty firm of bankers of which the respondent's father Subramanian Chettiar and the appellant, who was the first defendant in the suit were partners. Subramanian Chettiar who had become divided from the respondent died in July, 1934, before the suit was instituted, leaving his properties by his will to his widow, who was joined as the second defendant. Subramanian Chettiar's estate having been adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 59 of 1935 on the file of the High Court at Rangoon, the Official Assignee, Rangoon, was brought on record as the third defendant in the suit. The main defence of the appellant was that the sum of money credited in the name...
In Re: Sangiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad113; (1947)2MLJ252
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This is an application by the first accused in R.C. No. 8 of 1947 pending enquiry before the Special Second Class Magistrate, Madura, to revise the order of the Magistrate rejecting the application made by him and other accused in the case requesting the Magistrate to hold an identification parade in respect of the identity and names of the accused. The petitioner and others were accused of the offence of murder.2. The enquiry had not commenced and no witness had been examined when the application was made by a memorandum filed on behalf of the accused by their advocate. It was stated in the memorandum that neither the first information report nor the inquest report mentioned the names of any of the accused in the case and that none of the witnesses knew them either by name or by identity and that in the interest of justice it was necessary that an identification parade should be held in respect of both the identity and names of the fifteen accused mentioned there...
P.M. Natarajan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sitalakshmi Ammal and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad243; (1947)2MLJ452
Yaha Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a summary order on a claim petition. In O.S, No. 190 of 1933, District Munsiff's Court, Tirupur, an attachment before judgment was taken out of the properties belonging to defendants 5 and 6 in the present suit. The execution petition was transferred to the District Munsiff's Court, Devakottah, and the property involved in the present suit was attached by that Court. In due course O.S. No. 190 of 1933 was decreed. On 3rd May, 1938, the attached property was brought to sale by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 190 of 1933 and purchased by the present appellants, who are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. A sale certificate was issued in their favour on the 4th August, 1938 and on 7th October, 1941, possession was delivered.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 97 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsiff of Devakottah obtained a decree in S.G.S. No. 23 of 1941 on the file of the Subordi...
Muttaluru Veeraraghavayya Vs. Chundi Venkataraghavareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ468
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This civil revision petition has been referred to a Full Bench by Bell, J., in consequence of apparent conflict in the decisions relating to the sale in execution of unenfranchised inam land. The relevant facts can be stated shortly. The petitioner was the inamdar in respect of two acres of land, known as Vadla Kammara (carpenter and blacksmith) inam. The respondent obtained a money decree against the petitioner and, in execution of it, this property was attached on 21st March, 1942 ; notice was given to the petitioner, who appeared on 6th August, 1942 ; the property was sold at a Court auction held on 12th April, 1943, after several postponements of sale had been granted at the instance of the petitioner; the sale was duly confirmed by the Court on 29th June, 1943. Although he had full knowledge of the execution proceedings and appeared during their progress, the petitioner made no objection to the attachment and sale and he did not raise any contentio...
In Re: K. Govindaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad32; (1947)2MLJ308
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The petitioner in this case was accused of an offence of criminal breach of trust and a charge sheet was laid by the Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, Villupuram. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. The original charge sheet was under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently the Police put in a petition for an alteration of the section to Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The section was accordingly altered and the case was then transferred from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai to the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai for disposal according to law. The latter Magistrate took the case on his file as C.C. No. 18 of 1946 and framed a charge under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code on 27th July, 1946. There was then an application to this Court by the accused to quash that charge on the ground that the offence alleged really amounted to an offence under Section 409 ...
The Municipal Council, Represented by Its Executive Authority, the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ339
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one by the Municipal Council of Chicacole against the principal debtor, the first defendant, and the surety, the second defendant. After the appeal had been filed and a memorandum of cross-objections had been preferred, the principal debtor died ; and so the appeal has admittedly abated against him. The question is whether the second respondent is entitled to argue his memorandum of cross-objections.2. It is argued on behalf of the second respondent, the surety, that the appeal as regards him is still technically maintainable, although the appellant could not succeed, because the surety could not be made liable for a larger amount than the principal debtor, whose liability was determined finally by the trial Court. If the appeal against the second respondent is maintainable, he is entitled to argue his memorandum of cross-objections.3. In Murugappa Chettiar v. Ponnuswami Pillai : AIR1921Mad405 , the question arose whether, upon...
In Re: A.K. Gopalan Nambiar Alias A.K. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad270; (1947)2MLJ376
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 3. of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act 1922, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry. On appeal the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The charge was based on a speech delivered by him at a public meeting held on the 30th April, 1946,at Taliparamba Road. Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, runs as follows:Whoever intentionally causes or attempts to cause or does any act which he knows is likely to cause disaffection towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India amongst the members of a police force, or induces or attempts to induce, or does any act which he knows is likely to induce, any member of a police force to withhold his services, or to commit a breach of discipline shall be punished with imprisonment which...
Abdul Kareem Sahib and anr. Vs. Muhammad Khader Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ354
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is one of limitation, and it arises from the construction of the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada in A.S. No. 138 of 1936. The short facts are that the appellants who were the defendants in O.S. No. 361 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Coconada, were directed by that Court to pay a sum of Rs. 123-5-0 as costs to the plaintiff-respondent. On appeal, a conditional decree was passed in the following terms:(1) If the appellants (defendants) pay to respondent (plaintiff) within three months from this date Rs. 800 plus interest at six per cent, per annum on Rs. 1,400 from 10th January, 192a to 28th August, 1924 and interest on Rs. 800 at the same rate from 28th August 1924 till date of payment, the appellant shall retain possession of the house and the suit do stand dismissed, (2) that if the payment is not made within three months, the respondent (plaintiff) be entitled to pay Rs. 600 to the appellant (defenda...
Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Rahiman Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ419
Tyagarajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur, made in A.S. No. 38 of 1946 filed against the order in execution made in E. P. No. 326 of 1945, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. The said execution was filed to execute an order made by the Rent Controller of Guntur in favour of one Rabia Bibi on the 12th September, 1945. An appeal was taken from the Rent Controller's order and that order was upheld by the Collector of Guntur on the 10th October, 1945. A period of two months had been granted for the tenant who is the appellant before this Court to vacate the premises. On the 6th November, 1945, Rabia Bibi died and the application for execution was made by the legal representatives of Rabia Bibi before the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur. Objection was taken by the tenant to the execution on the ground that the order for eviction was personal to the landlady and intended to enure only for her benefit as her case was that she ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›