Chennai Court November 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: Mandayapurath Eresa Kutty Moopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad328; 73Ind.Cas.155; (1923)44MLJ166
Oldfield, J.1. Preliminary objection has been taken to the trial in the lower court in this appeal and a similar objection on an identical ground has been taken to the trial in Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 1922. We have accordingly heard the earned Counsel in both these cases before giving judgment. Our decision on the objection in this case will apply also to the objection in Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 1922.2. The objection is that, the case being instituted under an order of the local Government based on Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order, Ex. A, in the present case being similar to the order in the other already referred to, is riot such as is contemplated by law, and a condition precedent to the validity of the proceedings is therefore wanting; or more definitely that the order of authorization by Government is not given to any determinate person as (it is said) Section 196 impliedly requires. This objection was not taken in either case in the grounds of appeal in ...
In Re: Mathi Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.242
ORDERWallace, J.1. The only point raised in this petition is that the conviction under Sections 143 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code was illegal, since the offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, was compounded.2. It appears that on 5th July 1920 a compromise petition was put into the lower Court signed by the first petitioner (first accused) and prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 and 2, P.W. No. 1 being the alleged owner of the field on which the alleged trespass took place. The case was being prosecuted by the Police and the compromise petition was rejected by the lower Court as the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.3. The common object charged against the accused as members of an unlawful assembly is the criminal trespass aforesaid. Petitioner contends that, since the parties had a legal right to compound that trespass, such a composition has the effect of annulling the common object charged and, therefore, the charge under Section 143, Indian Pe...
In Re: P.S. Velavutham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.172
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused by the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, in Calendar Case No. 7381 of 1921 on his file. The accused has been convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment by the Magistrate.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that his client is not guilty of any offence on the facts found by the Magistrate.3. The facts of the case as found by the Magistrate are as follows:--The accused entered into two contracts with the firm, of which complainant is a clerk, for the delivery to him of 400 bags of castor seeds of a particular kind at Rs. 16 per bag, each bag weighing 165 lbs. and again for the delivery of 300 bags of another kind of castor seeds at the rate of Rs. 15 per bag, here also each bag was to weigh 165 lbs. The delivery in each case was to be at Royapuram. With reference to these...
V. Parthasarathi Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Doraisami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.826
Spencer J.1. The question referred to us is whether a tenant in occupation of trust lands belonging to a temple or mosque can enforce a compulsory sale under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act and require the temple or mosque to deliver the land to him on a valuation to be made by the Court.2. There is no difficulty, to my mind, in including the trustees of temples, mosques and other religious endowments within the definition of 'landlord' in Section 2 of Madras Act III of 1922, as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section provides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of a tenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant is sought to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The explanation to this section defines 'land' as 'the interest of the landlord in the land and all ot...
Ganapathi Sarma and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.147
ORDERWallace, J.1. Petitioners have been convicted of having taken part in a riot and committed various offences in the course of the riot. The riot took place at Karur on the night of 24th August 1921 and early morning of 25th August 1921, and was occasioned, as found by the lower Courts, by an attempt on the part of the Congress arid Khilafat Committees there to compel the manager of a theatrical troupe performing at the theatre at Karur to hand over to the funds of these Committees his takings for one night's performance. Annoyed at in refusal, the crowd who had accompanied the Secretaries of these Committees attacked the theatre while the performance was going on, stampeded the audience and committed various acts of violence to the persons in the audience and the property of the troupe. The Trying Court has written a careful and discriminating judgment, in which the main facts of the riot are very clearly set out.2. The chief incidents of the night are detailed in order in paragrap...
In Re: P.S. Velayutham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad516
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused by the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, in Calendar Case No. 7381 of 1921 on his file. The accused has been convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment by the Magistrate.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that his client is not guilty of any offence on the facts found by the Magistrate.3. The facts of the case as found by the Magistrate are as follows--The accused entered into two contracts with the firm, of which complainant is a clerk, for the delivery to him of 400 bags of castor seeds of a particular kind at Rs. 16 per bag, each bag weighing 165 lbs. and again for the delivery of 3G0 bags of another kind of castor seeds at the rate of Rs. 15 per bag, here also each bag was to weigh 165 lbs. The delivery in each case was to be at Royapuram. With reference to these ...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Ramachandra Thondaman Sahib by Agent Pothan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ122
Krishnan, J.1. This was an application by the petitioner as the person beneficially entitled to the fruits of the decree in O.S. No. 293 of 1899 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly which had been obtained by one Krishnaswami Iyengar to be made a party to the appeal against the order of the District Munsif removing the obstruction of the respondent Ramachandra Thondaman by agent Pothan, against possession of the property, purchased in execution being taken. The learned Subordinate Judge had dismissed the application holding that petitioner should file a fresh execution application and cannot claim to join in the present proceedings relying on Manikkam v. Tatayya I.L.R. 26 C. 250. In that case such a point was not discussed or decided. That case really decided that the beneficial owner can come in and execute a decree obtained by a benamidar and if there was any dispute about the decree being benami the executing Court should decide it.2. Devar Buksh Sirkar v....
Thurutheelakath Thottinakkara Puthiapurayil Kunhi Kuttiali, Karnavan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ184
1. In this case the plaintiff was the manager of a mosque. He held his position under a karar, dated the 21st of October 1910 which was a yearly appointment authorising him to collect the various dues due to the mosque, to pay the outgoings of the mosque and to take his remuneration according to stipulations in a previous karar which stipulations were also incorporated in this document. Turning to the previous karar, Ex. 32 in the case, dated the 9th of November, 1903, one finds there a more detailed account of the payments to be made by the manager, of his duties and liabilities and a detailed account of what is to be given as remuneration for the work he did which included a right to take 720 seers of paddy and Rs. 12 per annum. One of the terms was that he and that they were to be rendered and the balance struck on a certain date each year after the end of the year's management. It was arranged between the parties that when the mosque was short of funds the manager advanced monies o...
K.M. Sheikh Muhammad Rowther Vs. Subba Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.46
1. We have considered the evidence and find no reason to disturb the learned Subordinate Judge's finding that the petitioner was kept in ignorance of the sale of his property which took place on the '25th October 1917, till application was made by the counter-petitioner for possession to be delivered to him in December 1919.2. The want of resemblance between the signatures on Exhibits 1(a) and 1(6) and the petitioner's admitted signatures and the counter-petitioner's failure to explain how the figures of Rs. 2,500 in Exhibit A was arrived at and how certain words came to be struck out and others put in, confirms the conclusion which the rest of the evidence leads to on the question of fraud. This finding does not necessarily involve a finding that the process-servers were parties to the fraud in serving notices on the petitioner.3. It is argued that fraud anterior or subsequent to the act complained of will not save limitation. In the present case there was a continuing fraud which com...
T.T.P. Kunhikuttiali and ors. Vs. T.P. Kunhammad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad347; 71Ind.Cas.466
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff WHS the manager of a mosque. He held his position under a karar, dated the 21st of October 1910, which was a yearly appointment authorising him to collect the various dues due to the mosque, to pay the outgoings of the mosque and to take his remuneration according to stipulations in a previous karar which stipulations were also incorporated in this document. Turning to the previous karar, Exhibit XXXII in the case, dated the there November 1903, one finds there a more detailed account of the payments to be made by the manager of his duties and liabilities and a detailed account of what is to be given as remuneration for the work he did which included a right to take 720 seers of paddy and Rs. 12 per annum. One of the terms was that he was to maintain a correct account of receipts and disbursements and that they were to be rendered and the balance struck on a certain date each year after the end of the year's management. It was arranged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »