Chennai Court December 1919 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.
W.H. Lockley Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.345
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The accused has been convicted of the offence of cheating. He was employed in Messrs. Oakes & Co. as Works Manager. Mr. Wilson was employed in the same firm in a slightly higher capacity. The case for the prosecution is that the accused received Rs. 3,000 from Mr. Wilson on the representation that the money was required for paying for certain articles purchased for the firm from the Chief Engineer of S.S. Ural, but that he only paid Rs. 2,000 to the Chief Engineer and misappropriated the balance.2. The arguments in appeal were mainly devoted to attacking the procedure followed by the Magistrate. Mr. Richmond's first complaint was that there was a misjoinder of charges. The facts on which this contention was based are these:3. The original charge against the accused was that he received stolen property from the Chief Engineer. After the prosecution evidence was closed, an alternative charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, was added. The learned Counsel conten...
M.P.M.R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. K.R.S.V. Muthiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.358; (1920)38MLJ247
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. There were two brothers belonging to the Nattukottai Chetty community, namely, Narayana Chettiar and Mathiah Chettiar. The plaintiff is the son of the former and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are sons of the latter. The two brothers carried on money-lending business in the name of M.P.M.R.M. They had business in various places. Narayana Chettiar died fifteen years ago, and Muthiah Chettiar died about 10 years previous to the suit. At the time of the latter's death, plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 were all minors and the family was undivided. The 1st defendant in the suit is maternal uncle of defendants Nos. 4 to 6. He was appointed as agent by the mother of there defendants to manage and look after their share in the family property and the business. The 2nd defendant, who is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, was similarly appointed by the plaintiff's mother. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff, who attained majority in 1911, for a decree directing defen...
Narayanasamy Rao and anr. Vs. Ramasamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.611
1. One Perumal Naick was the owner of the three classes of properties which are known as the A, B and C properties. His son is also known as Perumal Naicker. The son brought a suit against the father in Original Suit No. 11 of 1905 for partition. During the pendency of the suit, the father mortgaged all the properties to one Parthasarathy Iyengar by Exhibit E on the 16th Septembar 1903. On the 15th October 1910 he sold a property alone to plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 by releasing that property from the mortgage to Parthasarethy Iyengar by paying the consideration received from the plaintiff to the mortgagee. As the suit for partition -was pending then, the father executed Exhibit A on the same date' as the sale deed, Exhibit B, agreeing to indemnify the plaintiff under certain conditions. In January 1911 be mortgaged the B and C properties to the 4th defendant. The degree for partition between the father and the son was passed on the 29th September 1917, Parthasarathy Iyengar sued the first...
Sri Gadadharadoss Bavaji Mahant of Balaji Mutt Vs. Suryanarayana Patna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.92; (1920)38MLJ342
John Wallis, C.J.1. We accept the finding that the cadjan deed, Exhibit A, is not proved. There is, however, in this case nothing to rebut the presumption recently laid down by the Privy Council that the grant to the inamdars was a grant of the proprietary right in the suit land including the Kudiva-ram as well as the Melvaram interest. There is, also, no sufficient reason to interfere with the finding on the second additional issue, assuming it to be material, that the inam in question was created after the permanent settlement of the estate.2. The suit lands are situated in the village of Thandipuram in the permanently settled Zamindari of Surangi and are held of the Zemindar by the inamdar at a Kattubadi or quit rent of Bo. 15 payable to the Zemindar. If the whole village had been granted, it would itself have constituted an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, as coming within the words 'one or more villages' of a permanently settled estate in Section 3 (2) (e)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›