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.
Rangaswami Nayudu and anr. Vs. V. Krishnaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.463
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Acting District Judge, South Arcot, by certain persons entitled in reversion to the property of the husband of one Tailammal. That lady left some property to a religious charity. It has been found as a fact and is not disputed that this lady owned that property herself and was entitled to leave it by Will. The defendants, therefore, admittedly have no right to the possession of the property at all. They are sued by the plaintiffs in alternative capacities, either on behalf of themselves and all other worshippers or frequenters of the charitable institution in question or as managers of the charity. The learned District Judge has found as a fact that they are managers of the charity. There was ample evidence which entitled him to come to that conclusion, as they had in fact been acting since the death of the brother of one and father of the other plaintiff, who admittedly was a. properly constituted trustee or manager of th...
In Re: a First Grade Pleader Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad485; 73Ind.Cas.329
1. This is an application under the Legal Practitioners Act for the legal practitioner in question to show cause why he should not be dealt with by the Court. The facts of this case have been put before us very fairly indeed by the learned Advocate-General as the President of the Vakils' Association and very frankly by Mr. Grant on behalf of the Pleader in question; and, although very sinister charges indeed were made against the Pleader, on examination the sinister aspect of the case disappears but there remain these facts. The Pleader having, in his professional capacity, had the custody of certain documents put them into Court. He was acting at that time for the father of the present petitioner and his brother, and, on the death of the father, he continued to act for a time for the two brothers. Those documents not being required for the purpose of the then pending suit, the practitioner applied to and got them back from the Court. They apparently were taken by his clerk and kept am...
In Re: Dervish Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.212; (1923)44MLJ84
ORDERWallace, J.1. Two points are taken by petitioner (1) that he was refused opportunity to have his defence evidence produced; (2) that the Bench Court has recorded no reasons for his conviction.2. As to point (I) after a good deal of searching of records rendered necessary by the inaccurate reports of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate's Court, it was verified that the petitioner had paid batta for a subpoena for the production on 20th December, 1921, of two Police diaries from D2 and D3 Stations and that subpoenas were issued accordingly. Service was effected too late and neither dialy was produced on 20th December 1921. The case was taken up on several dates after that on 3rd January 1922, 10th January 1922 and 24th January 1922, but on none of these dates did petitioner ask for any further subpoenas or warrants for the production of these diaries nor was any taken out. On the date of final hearing, 31st January 1922, the Bench Court refused further adjournment on the ground that ...
Golla Chakrapani Vs. Katneni Lakshmaperumallu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad369; (1923)44MLJ90
1. In this case the question is whether the plaintiff can sue to establish his right to remove an idol from the temple of his village, that idol being alleged to be cracked, and to replace it by a new idol made by himself. The temple, it is not disputed, has no trustees and no property. It is referred to as the temple of the villagers, who are the worshippers in it.2. The plaintiff first supports his right to remove the idol and to replace it by a new one on the ground that it would. be an act of worship, which like any other villager he is entitled to perform. We cannot see how in any ordinary sense the removal of an idol from a temple and the substitution of a new one is an act of worship.3. Next the plaintiff argues that such removal land substitution would be an act of management. The difficulty however is that he has not shown that he has any right to manage, He no doubt presented an application in the court of First Instance for leave to sue as representing the villagers as a bod...
Karumuri Ramalakshmi Alias Rattamma and ors. Vs. Boda Nagaratnam and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad335; 71Ind.Cas.343; (1923)44MLJ677
1. The foundation of the lower appellate Court's judgment is that Ex. IV is a surrender of the interest of the 1st defendant. The appeal is argued on the footing that Ex. IV operates merely as a gift to the 1st defendant's daughter Subbamma. now deceased, of the 1st defendant's interest in the suit property under the Will, Ex. V, purporting to have been executed by her husband now deceased. It is necessary to add that Ex. V has been found not to be genuine. Though there is no finding before us as to the 1st defendant's responsibility for its being put forward, the basis of our decision as to the character of Ex. IV must be the intention of the executant, the 1st defendant.2. The intention we have to collect from the wording of the document; and that wording fortunately is in our opinion clear. Ex. IV is headed as a gift-deed, that description being repeated in its first paragraph. The 2nd paragraph runs in this way: 'My husband late Korumadi Venkata Papayya Garu had executed a will on ...
Abdul Shaker Sahib Vs. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad284; (1923)44MLJ107
1. The respondents, plaintiffs, obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain lands and superstructures thereon to them by the first defendant. Coutts Trotter J. gave judgment in the following words: 'I must therefore find for the plaintiffs and give them decree for specific performance on payment of Rs. 4,000. Time for payment two months.' In pursuance of this judgment a decree was passed providing (1) that, upon payment by the plaintiffs on or before the 19th day of December 1921 of a sum of Rupees Four Thousand only, the first defendant do execute and register a proper deed of conveyance of the properties in the schedule (2) that upon payment the first defendant do put the plaintiffs in possession of the properties together with all documents and title-deeds. Before the expiry of the two months that is before December 19th, the first defendant had given notice of appeal. Before the expiry of the two months but after the notice of appeal, the plaint...
Thona Sina Naina Muhammad Rowther Vs. Mona Moona Abdul Rahman Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.207
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura, in Original Suit No. 56 of 1921, on his file. The only point argued before us by the appellant is that the present suit is barred by res judicata under Section 11, read with Explanation IV, of the Civil Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge has held that it is not so barred and hence the appeal by the defendant.2. The plea of res judicata is based on the former suit, Original Suit No. 1 of 1916, brought by the present plaintiff along with the widow and daughter of his deceased brother, one Muthu Mahomed Rowther, against the heirs of one Varisai Rpwther, defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and against the present defendant as the 6th defendant, and against the heirs of his third deceased brother Naina Mahomed Rowther. His case there was that the properties in suit, the title-deeds of which stood in the name of Muthu Mahomed Rowther were purchased by all the three brothers with t...
In Re: Puniya Syamalo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.624
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a case referred by the Sessions Judge of Ganjam. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Berhampore purporting to act under Section 231 of Act XIV of 1920 (Madras Local Boards Act) not only directed a toll gate lessee to pay up fees due from him to the Ganjam District Board, but fined him Rs. 25 as well. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the levy of fine is illegal and I quite agree with him.2. The point of some difficulty raised is, whether this Court, sitting in the exercise of its powers of criminal revision, has authority to deal with such a case; in other words, whether the Magistrate is, when he takes action under Section 221 of Act XIV of 1920, an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The word 'Magistrate' is not defined in Act XIV of 1920, consequently, I must fall back on the definition in the Madras General Clauses Act, viz., 'any person exercising all or any of the powers of a Magistrate under the Cod...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›