Chennai Court March 1912 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.
Addala Yerrivadu Vs. the District Magistrate of Vizagapatam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.600
ORDER1. The accused has been convicted of an offence under Section 304A. of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate has also passed an order under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code. In making this order, he exceeded his powers under the Code. Under Section 341, he should, on convicting the accused, have merely reported the case for the orders of the High Court, leaving it to pass final orders.2. We, however, think that the order made is, in substance, a suitable order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Magistrate as made without jurisdiction, and, under Section 341, we pass an order in the same terms as his order....
Gorigala Venkayya and ors. Vs. Mugunta Lakshmiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ394
1. The first question argued in this appeal is that an enquiry ought to have been made whether the judgment debtor had notice of the attachment or not; but no such question was raised before the lower court. The next question that is argued is that Order xx1, Rule 53, Clause (6), does not apply to cases where the attachment was made. We do not find any sufficient reason for excluding from the operation of this rule cases of attachment before judgment. The appeal is dismissed....
Kamalathammal Minor by Guardian Mysore Krishnamachariar Vs. C.V. Srini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.277
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that there is no appeal in this case. The appeals preferred against an order of the Subordinate Judge directing the Receiver appointed in the suit to pay every month a certain sum of money to the appellant as maintenance pending the disposal of the suit. The appellant is a Hindu widow, and the suit was instituted in order to establish the plaintiff's--1st respondent's--right as the adopted son of the deceased. We think that there is an appeal in this case. Order XLII, Rule 1, Clause (s), of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, says that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1 of Order XL, and Rule 1 of Order XL deals, among other questions, with cases of orders appointing a Receiver or removing any person from the possession or custody of the property and conferring upon the Receiver all such powers as to the application and disposal of rents and profits. The effect of the order under appeal is to authorize the Receiver to make certain paym...
Rajam Chetty Alias Subbaya Chetty Vs. Edalapalli Authiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.303
1. We think the District Judge was not right in issuing the certificate unconditionally to the petitioner. He ought to have required security to be given by her as a condition precedent to the granting of -the certificate. The petitioner is a Hindu widow and she applied for a certificate. She was opposed by the counter-petitioner, who is a reversioner of the deceased. The case for the petitioner was that there was a partition between the deceased and the other members of the family, and the counter-petitioner's case was that the partition was invalid. The District Judge declined, under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, to go into the question of the validity of the partition, and he granted the certificate to the petitioner as the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Section 9, Clause (1), says that if a certificate is issued under Section 7, Sub-section (3), then the District Court shall require a security bond with one or more sureties...
Gorrijala Venkayya and ors. Vs. Pothigunta Laxmiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.285
1. The first question argued in this appeal is that an inquiry ought to have been made whether the judgment-debtor had notice of the attachment or not; but no such question was raised before the lower Court. The next question that is argued is that Order XXI, Rule 55, Clause 6, does not apply to cases where the attachment was made before judgment. We de not find any sufficient reason for excluding from the operation of this rule cases of attachment before judgment. The appeal is dismissed....
Aiyagari Venkatramiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.603
1. The appellant who is a Karnam is charged with fraudulent falsification of the Government accounts of his village, an offence under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge has dealt so fully and carefully with the facts of the case that it is sufficient for us to say that on the merits we have no doubt of the appellant's guilt. The fraud was committed by first entering the correct area cultivated in certain survey numbers in the crop accounts and collecting the appropriate assessments from the puttah and, subsequently, altering and reducing the area shown as cultivated (and, of course, also the assessment collected) and crediting the difference in the amounts to the Karnam's own puttah.2. The appellant's Counsel raises a question as to the legality of the charge, and contends that his client is charged with six, if not nine, separate falsifications and that the charge is, therefore, illegal with reference to Sections 233 and 234, Criminal Procedure Code.3. The charg...
Palliyil Chundethodiyil Karnavan and Manager Narayaniamma's son Krishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.109
1. We do not think that the principle of Section 55, sub Section 4 (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, can be applied to the case of an exchange like the present. The plaintiff, therefore, has no charge upon the property exchanged and the decree must be a decree for four hundred rupees to be recovered from the assets of Korukutti Nayar, the provisions for sale of specific property being struck out. We modify the decree accordingly and direct each party to bear his own costs in this Court....
Peruri Somanna and ors. Vs. Grandhi Manikam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.517
Ayling, J.1. The appellant's Vakil seeks to distinguish this case from Venhata Chinnaya Row v. Venkataramaya 4 M.k 137 on the ground that, here, no consideration can be said to have moved from the plaintiff. It appears to me that it may fairly be inferred (as the lower Courts have inferred) that Mullaya recognized the claim of plaintiff to maintenance, and that the undertaking of his brothers to satisfy it was one of the considerations which induced him to relinquish his right to the family property on the somewhat unfavourable terms set forth in that document. It may also be inferred that, if the brothers had not undertaken this liability, Mulaya would have maintained her himself and expected better terms for himself as regards partition. The case seems to stand on all fours with that of Button v. Poole 1 Vent 318 quoted in Venhata Chinnaya Row v. Venkatramaya 4 M.k 137 for the daughter, Girisel in that case, had no more legal claim on Sir Edward Poole than plaintiff had on Mullaya, a...
Panchalapalli Pichi Reddy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.884
1. This second appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by the appellant to establish the right of the Strodhriemdars of a certain village (plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 9) and to a tenth Share of the water of a tank and to recover a certain sum, of money which the plaintiff paid under protest to the Government as water-cess levied from him.2. Two principal questions arose in the suit, one was, whether the suit was barred by limitation and the other, whether the plaintiff had made out his right to the water as claimed by him. The District Munsif found both the points in favour of the plaintiff, but the District Judge reversed the judgment of the District Munsif on the question of limitation and also on the merits. As regards limitation he has held that Section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act applied to the suit. That section says: 'Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent parties deeming themselves aggrieved by any 'proceedings under this Act, except as herei...
V. Subba Row Vs. Annathanarayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ64
1. The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arose, purchased the right of the 3rd defendant, a member of an undivided family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 to 8, in certain lands in court-auction in execution of a decree obtained by him against the 3rd defendent. This suit was instituted in the District Munsif 's Court of Namakal, Salem District and was to recover the 3rd defendant's one-fourth share in those lands. The contesting defendants pleaded that there were other properties belonging to the family in the District of Coimbatore and in the Native State of Cochin and that the suit for the division of part only of the properties belonging to the family was not maintainable. They pleaded also that there were debts belonging to the family and that no partition could be allowed without making provision for the discharge of those debts. There were also other pleas, viz, that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the rule of res judicata and that the 3rd defendant had r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »