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.
A.K.G. Ahamad Thambi Maraicair Vs. V.S. Basava Maracayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad254; (1923)44MLJ69
Wallace, J.1. Three main points have been argued on this petition, (1) whether the statutory rules for the election of the Chairman were broken, (2) whether having found that they were broken the lower court was not bound to find further that that breach had materially affected the result of the election, before it could set aside the election, (3) whether if the court has neglected so to find, this Court can, and, if it can, will, interfere in revision, and in what manner it should so interfere.2. As to point (1) whether the election rules have been broken, the lower court's finding appears to me to be a finding of fact, which in revision, this Court will not ordinarily disturb. It is pleaded for petitioner that the lower court's finding is vitiated by a fundamental misreading of the rules which are statutory rules, i.e.that it is based on an error of law. Rule IV lays down that 'no candidate whose name has been proposed and seconded shall take part in a ballot.' It is admitted that p...
In Re: Kovaganti Alias Nallagonda Appiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ130
ORDERWallace, J.1. The two petitioners in this petition are jointly charged with and convicted of under Section 241 of the Indian Penal Code, of passing counterfeit coins on three different occasions on the same day to three different persons. The first and main point urged in their favour is that the joint trial contravenes Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is quite clear that the offences are of the same kind, and that either petitioner might have been tried by force of Section 234 with all three offences at the same trial. I can see no reason for restricting the scope of Section 234 to offences committed against the same person, for which position petitioner agrues. The essence of the offence in Section 241 Indian Penal Code is the delivery of counterfeit coin to any person and three deliveries of counterfeit coin to three different persons are clearly offences of the same kind within the meaning of that term as set out in Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3....
Vencatachella Pillai Vs. Arunthavathatchi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.548
1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in Original Suit No, 65 of 10.19.2. The plaintiff is the widow of one Ananta Narayana Pillai and the defendant Vencatachella Pillai, is her husband's brother.3. She claims the properties in various ways: firstly, the whole of the properties in schedules II and III on a certain footing; secondly, half of those properties on a certain other footing; and thirdly, one-third of 1he property in schedules II and IV and the whole of schedule III properties on still another footing. The facts of the case are fully set out by the learned Subordinate Judge in this judgment and need not again be referred to in detail.4. Anantanarayana, Ramachandra and Vencatachella (the defendant herein) were brothers, being the sons of one Muthusami Pillai. Muthusami Pillai had two brothers himself, but they died 20 or 25 years ago leaving no male issue, and all their property passed to Muthusami Pillai. Schedule II of the...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Pandit Radhika Prasad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad667; (1923)44MLJ685
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The history of this matter is so clearly stated in the judgment of Coutts Trotter, J., that it is unnecessary for me to repeat it and I have nothing to add to his statement of the facts except as to the plaintiff's title and I will deal with that first.2. The plaintiff is the assignee of one Mukund Lal who is the direct lineal descendant of Madhu Sahai who in the year 1845 had issued to him a document called a Promissory Note of the Tanjore debt. No. 307. The plaintiff has also obtained from the District Court of Banares a succession certificate under the Succession Certificate Act of 1889 in the matter of the estate of Madhu Sahai declaring him entitled to collect money and the interest due on the said promissory note (Ex. M.). The effect of that certificate is that the plaintiff is declared to have whatever rights Madhu Sahai would have had in that Promissory Note if he had been alive, and payment to him will be a good discharge to the government. T...
Sudali Muthu Pillai Vs. V. Sudali Muthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad270; 71Ind.Cas.173
Oldfield, J.1. In this petition, I am asked here to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin directing the petitioner, appellant before him to pay ad valorem fees on the amount at stake in his miscellaneous appeal instead of the fixed fee of eight anmas which he had actually paid.2. The first question raised before me is whether this is a case in which this Court can interfere in revision with reference to the terms of Section 115, Civil Procedure. Code. In order to bring the matter with in the section I have first to find wether there is a case which has been decided by a Court. The respondent contends that there is no such case because the lower Court's order does not deckle anything at all being merely a conditional order which declares that the petitioner's appeal will be dismissed, if payment is not made within a month. The petitioner, it is urged, should have waited until a month had expired, allowed his appeal to be dismissed and then brought a second appeal agains...
Sri Gadicherla Venkatanarasimha Rao Garu Vs. Nyapathy Subba Rao Pantul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad376; 73Ind.Cas.991
Spencer, J.1. This suit was instituted by three plaintiffs styling themselves members and trustees of the Godavari Hindu Samaj, with the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of getting a scheme framed by the Court for carrying-out the trust contained in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Will of the late Rajah Gadicherla Seethayya of Rajahmundry who executed it on April 4th and died on April 15th 1909. By the same Will the testator gave authority to his widow to adopt a son which she did on June 4th, 1911, by adopting the present appellant.2. Clauses 11 and 12 of the Will run as follows:11. A sum of Rs. 400 should be spent every year out of my estate, either for the spread (Abhivrithi) of the Sanskrit language, or for the spread of the Hindu religion, or for both The said sum must be a charge on my estate. The executors must make the arrangements necessary therefor to have the same conducted as the then existing trustees of the Raj ahmund...
(Annai) Errappa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1930Mad186
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor. In four appeals the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri has ordered a retrial of the appellant because certain witnesses at the original trial gave evidence in English and their evidence was not translated to the appellant as required by Section 361, Civil P.C.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in my opinion was right in holding that the code lays down that such translation should be made and with all respect I do not agree with the ruling in Hari Narayan Chandra v. Emperor : AIR1928Cal27 that paras. 1 and 2, Section 361 are mutually exclusive, An accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that the ought to be kept informed of what is being said. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate misdirects himself when he observes that the irregularity cannot be cured under Section 537, Criminal P.C. No doubt after Subramania Ayyar v. Emperor [1902...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›