Chennai Court October 1922 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: Manikonda Lingayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ683
ORDERWallace, J.1. The refusal of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a Vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in, was clearly wrong, See In re Muni Reddi 5 M.L.T. 290 and contrary to rule 161 of Criminal Rules of Practice. In any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper Court and was then transferred to him for disposal.2. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. He is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law....
In Re: Sikka Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad326; 72Ind.Cas.351
ORDER1. There is before us, first, an application for the transfer of C.C. No. 2 of 1921, from the file of the Village Magistrate of Keeripatti to any other Village Magistrate and, next, an application for quashing the Village Magistrate's proceedings in that case. The relief asked for in the latter application is described somewhat inaccurately. For it does not appear that there are any proceedings by the Village Magistrate, which can be quashed or set aside. What has happened is that the Village Magistrate received an oral complaint against the petitioners and issued process to them thereon. They did not comply with that process on the ground that the occurrence in question did not take place within the Magistrate's jurisdiction and he had no power to issue process in respect of it. On that default the Village Magistrate filed a complaint against them, which was heard, of an offence punishable under Section 174, Indian Penal Code. In dismissing that complaint, the Sub-Magistrate acce...
Manikkonda Lingayya and anr. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad192
ORDERWallace, J.1. The refusal of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a Vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in was clearly wrong See In re Muni Reddi [1909] 5 M.L.T. 290 and contrary to Rule 161 of Criminal Rules of Practice, In any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper Court and was then transferred to him for disposal.2. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. He is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law....
Palchur Mahalakshmamma (Dead) and anr. Vs. Vemi Reddi Babu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad367; (1923)44MLJ60
Krishnan, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant died early in 1921. One Jetti Balarami Reddi has been added at his own instance as the legai representative of the appellant, and his Vakil is proposing to argue the appeal. He was added as a party without notice to the respondent. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the hearing of the appeal at the instance of Jetti Balarami Reddi on the ground that he is in no sense the legal representative of the deceased lady, the appellant, Mahalakshmamma. There cannot be any doubt that this objection is a valid one. His own claim is that he got some properties under a will left by the deceased Mahalakshmamma, and, as such, he was entitled to represent her in this appeal. He does not claim to be a reversioner to the lady. Mahalakshmamma herself claimed first under a. will left by her husband, but, subsequently, she repudiated that will and pleaded in this case that the will was not genuine. In a litigation which went up to the Hi...
Atluru Saraswatamma Vs. Atluru Paddayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad297; 71Ind.Cas.274; (1923)44MLJ45
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Temporary Subordinate Judge held that Ex. V was admissible in evidence and the District Judge disagreed with him and refused to admit it, on the ground that it was unregistered. The material question to be decided in this appeal is, whether there was a division between the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant's husband and whether the document above referred to can be admitted in evidence. The facts necessary for the decision of this question may be very briefly stated.2. The first defendant and the deceased husband of the second defendant were brothers, being the sons of the plaintiff. The suit is for partition. The second defendant contends that a partition was effected during the lifetime of her husband and that Ex. V. embodies the terms thereof, that, under it, of the 12 acres of land which the family possessed, each son obtained about 5 acres odd, and the plaintiff, the father, was allotted for his maintenance 1 acre and SO cents. It m...
Chintalapudi Sanyasirao, Minor by Next Friend Venapalli Atchayya Vs. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad301; 73Ind.Cas.470; (1923)44MLJ263
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff, a minor represented by his natural father, sued to establish that he was the adopted son of Chintalapudi Sanyasayya. The defendant, who is the minor Aurasa son of the said Sanyasayya represented by his mother, opposed the suit. There was a reference to arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The defendant's mother agreed to the dispute being referred to be settled by a single arbitrator and in the muchilika that was drawn up she consented to be bound by and act according to the decision the arbitrator might give either on his own information or upon other information known in the village or by examining the witnesses of both parties should be think it necessary. The agreement to refer goes' on 'We shall not, before you give a decision regarding the said disputes between us, cancel this muchilika executed by us, and one of us alleging among others that you are doing injustice, or that you are partial and that your arbitration is not necessary and ...
In Re: K. Kunhahamad Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ450
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Tirur against his conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against that conviction and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May, 1922 and was dismissed under Section 421, as out of time, by Krishnan, J. sitting as Vacation Judge, on 2nd June, 1922. The accused) presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on the 17th July, 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June, 1922 can on some ground be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked first to me...
Sanyasi Rao Minor by Next Friend Atchayya Vs. Venkata Rao Minor by Gua ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad30
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff, a minor represented by his natural father, sued to establish 'that he was the adopted son of Chintalapudi Sanyasayya. The defendant who is the minor aurasa son of the said Sanyasayya, represented by his mother, opposes the suit. There was a reference to arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The defendant's mother agreed to the dispute being referred to be settled by a single arbitrator and in the much like that was drawn up she consented to be bound by and act according to the decision the arbitrator might give either on his own information or upon other information known in the village or by examining, the witnesses of both parties should he think it necessary. The agreement to refer goes on.We shall not, before you give a decision regarding the said disputes between us, cancel this muchilika executed by us, by one of us alleging among others that you are doing injustice, or that you are partial and that your arbitration is not necessary and t...
Kothandarama Reddy and anr. Vs. Jagathambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad229; 71Ind.Cas.32
Krishan, J.1. To apply the Act XIX of 1841 to any particular case it is a condition precedent that the Judge should find or be satisfied that the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a regular suit and that the application, was made bona fide. See Section 3 of Act XIX of 1841. There is no finding here by the Court that these conditions are fulfilled. Without that finding, the Court had no jurisdiction to act under the Act and its order is revisable; See Bapamma v. Collector of Godavari 12 M. 341 : 4 Ind. Ded. 587.2. The revision has been confined by the petitioners to B and C schedule properties only. The order of the lower Court with regard to these properties is set aside. Each party will bear his or their own costs....
K. Kunhammad Haji Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.599
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the third accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Tirur, against the conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against the conviction, and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are, that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code, through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May 1922, and was dismissed under Section 421, as it was out of time, by Krishnan, J., sitting as Vacation Judge on 2nd June 1922. The accused, presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on 17th July 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through Counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June 1922 can, on some grounds, be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »