Chennai Court September 1948 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: Thathi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ672
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. All the petitioners were convicted under Section 9, Madras Gaming Act. 1980. A-4 was in addition convicted under B. 8 of that Act. Before any conviction could be ordered under either of these two sections it must oertainly be proved that the premises in which these persons were found gaming was a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The learned Magistrate relied to a considerable extent on the presumption prescribed by Section 6 of the Act.Any cards, dice, etc., found in the place...shall be evidence that such a place is used as a common gaming house and that the persons found therein were there present for the purpose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the police offioer or any of his assistants,There could be certainly no denying the fact that cards and money were found with the petitioners and obviously they were playing a game of cards for stakes. There was gaming but the question is, was it gaming in a common gaming h...
In Re: Selathu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ797; (1948)2MLJ522
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The 17 petitioners were charged by the First Class Bench Magistrates, Uthamapalayam, under Section 506, Indian Penal Code, that on the night of 3rd June, 1947, they threatened P.Ws. 1 to 6 with harm and social boycott if they continued to work (as agricultural labourers) for their masters.2. The consistent testimony as to what happened on the night of 3rd June, 1947, is only with regard to the social boycott. It is true that the various witnesses add some other threat, but in that respect one witness does not corroborate another. The Magistrates seem also to have taken into account the various threats and obstructions on the following morning which were not the subject of the charge.3. Two questions only arise: (1) Whether the threat of social boycott is an offence punishable under Section 506, Indian Penal Code and (2) whether it has been proved that all the 17 petitioners were guilty of the offence with which they were charged.4. Since the petitioners were trying t...
Maruthia Subrahmanyam Vs. Nivarthi Lakshmi Narayanamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ523
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court went wrong in law in taking the year before filing the plaint to be the revenue or agricultural year 1945-1946, and whether it should have taken it to mean a calendar year, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a clause in the General Clauses Act. I am of opinion that the lower Court did not go wrong in law. The General Clauses Act is, as its very name implies, a general Act subject to the particular context. If there is nothing else to guide the Court in the particular case, regarding the year, then the year has to be taken as a calendar year. In the present case, we are, admittedly concerned, with the income from the land, and it is well known that regarding land the annual income is understood usually to be the income from the revenue year or cultivation year, unless the parties have contracted otherwise, or unless there is something in the context to sh...
In Re: Dhanaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ768; (1948)2MLJ557
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The only evidence against the accused is that when the servants of P.W. 1 went towards the oven where they heard a noise as of wood being chopped, they saw about ten men near the oven. All of them with the exception of the accused ran away; and lying on the ground there was wood belonging to P.W.1's well.2. On this evidence the accused was convicted and the papers sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for action under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, who thought the evidence not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused, and so sent the papers to the District Magistrate, asking him to refer the matter to the High Court to have the conviction set aside. The District Magistrate did this, and the Government supports the reference.3. With great respect, I agree with Lakshmana Rao, J. in Maila Gowda v. Emperor : AIR1939Mad513 that references of this kind are not desirable, merely because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate disagrees with the Trial Magistrate, esp...
R. Thimmappa and anr. Vs. Lingutla Balayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ590
Horwill, J.1. On 22nd June, 1937, the first respondent, Balayya, who was then in insolvent circumstances, alienated his property in favour of one Nagappa and others. On 13th August, 1938, the alienees sold some of the property to Rami Reddi, and on 10th August, 1944, Rami Reddi transferred some of his rights to Thimmappa. Balayya was adjudicated an insolvent on 8th March, 1938. At the instance of the Official Receiver, the alienations of 22nd June, 1937, and the consequent alienations were set aside. On 9th February, 1940, the adjudication was annulled under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act; but the property was ordered to continue to vest in the Official Receiver. Subsequently, the alienees deposited in Court a sufficient sum of money to pay off all the creditors and asked that the property be delivered to them. The insolvent subsequently also deposited money sufficient to pay off the creditors as well and to pay the alienees what was due to them under the deed of 22nd June...
Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Devaru by Adalthedar or Trustee, M. Narayana Ach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ283
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of two, among other references, made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara on the acquisition of about 25 acres and 10 cents of wet, dry and garden lands in the village of Jeppinamogru adjoining Mangalore town. The acquisition was for the agricultural Department to open a paddy breeding station. The material notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are dated 29th June, 1943 and 21st September, 1943. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the method of capitalising the annual rent of the lands for the award of compensation. The same method was followed by the learned Subordinate Judge and it is common ground before us that it was the correct method. The learned Subordinate Judge substantially accepted the award of the acquiring officer in so far as the average rent of the wet lands was concerned, but increased the price of rice from Rs. 7-4-0 to Rs. 9-5-6 per mura. In respect of the garden lands, the l...
K.E.M. Muhammad Ibrahim Maricar and ors. Vs. O.S.M. Ahmed Marica
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ576
Rajagopalan, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge refused permission to file an additional written statement with a fresh plea mainly on the ground, that the proposed additional plea was inconsistent with the pleas already set out in the written statement. The substantial line of defence chalked out in the original written statement was that the first defendant was a partner of the plaintiff. The plea in the proposed additional written statement was that it was the first defendant's father, Muhammad Sultan Maricair, that was the partner. The decision in Vava Rowther v. Sulaiman Rowther (1989) 32 L.W. 61 should suffice to hold that even if the plea is an inconsistent one, there is no legal bar to a consideration of such a plea. If both the pleas had been put forward in the written statement as originally filed, that would have been legally permissible, and the Court would have been called upon to investigate both the pleas, subject, of course, to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 16 of the ...
Manicka Goundan Vs. Krishna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ574
Rajagopalan, J.1. These petitions arise out of a suit instituted on the small causes side of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for the recovery of a sum, which the plaintiff alleged he had advanced as a loan to the defendant. The suit itself was filed on 24th February, 1947. On the application of the plaintiff, suggesting that a short interval should suffice for effecting service of summons on the defendant, the suit was posted to 5th March, 1947, and summons were ordered to issue to the defendant. On 5th March, 1947, the defendant was not present, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed ex parte. From the original of the summons returned to the Court it would appear that the summons was tendered to the defendant on 26th February, 1947, and that he refused to accept the same. The endorsement on the summons was dated 6th March, 1947, and it was apparently only subsequent to 6th March, 1947, that the served copy of the summons with the endorsement of the process server and the e...
S. Alaga Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Doraiswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ551
Rajagopalan, J.1. The application of the petitioners purported to be under Section 79-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. No evidence, documentary or oral, was placed on record, but the order of the Board, which the petitioners sought to set aside by their application, was made part of the pleadings. That order appointing Doraiswami Pillai, as one of the trustees till the minor, who was entiiled to that trusteeship, came of age, purported to be one passed under Section 42 of the Act.2. No doubt, the correctness of an order of appointment passed under Section 42 as such cannot be challenged by an application filed under Section 79-A. But the question is whether the order complained of is one that infringes the provisions of Section 79 of the Act.3. The application to the lower Court, which professed to be under Section 79-A, has to be treated as an application under Clause (3) of Section 79-A. Clause (3) can be invoked and the jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked only if...
Mikkilineni Raghavayya Vs. Mikkilineni Rangamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ579
Horwill, J.1. The appellant and the first respondent are husband and wife. She brought a suit against him for some property which he had conveyed to her by gift, and in the alternative for a half share in some larger property. That suit was compromised; and according to the terms of it, the wife was to get the property that she had claimed in the suit (the B schedule property) if she came back and continued to live with her husband. If she was unable to live with him, she was to forfeit her right to the property itself; but she was to be given for her maintenance 7 salakas of paddy a year. According to the husband's evidence, she came back to him three times; but she would not admit returning more than once. The argument on behalf of the husband, which was accepted by the learned District Munsiff, was that since she had returned a second time, she had forfeited her right under the compromise decree. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge distinguished the cases relied on by the husba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »