Chennai Court December 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.
Uthuman Ammal and anr. Vs. Naina Mahamad Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.314
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the main point taken before me is, that the High Court having remanded the case for trial by the Munsif's Court of Madura Town, the Court of the Madura Taluk, which is a different Court altogether, has no jurisdiction to deal with it or pass any orders in it, and consequently the orders passed by that Court must all be set aside and the Town Court directed to dispose of the case.2. This argument seems to me to be sound. Though the judgment of the High Court indicated 'the Court of the first instance' as the Court to try the remanded case, that Court had been abolished and the decree, therefore specified the Town Court as the Court to try the case in quite unambiguous language. So long as that direction stands, I must hold the Town Court alone can deal with the case.3. The learned Vakil for the respondent attempted to contend that I should apply the principle underlying Section 21, Civil Procedure Code, to this case and refuse to give effect to the objection ...
Rajagopala Pandurathar Vs. K. Thirupathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.258
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The dispute turns upon the construction of the mortgage-deed on which the suit was based. It has been conceded before us that the decree directs the sale of the property described in the mortgage-deed. The first defendant contends that his residence or the buildings constituting the palace are not included in the description contained in the decree, and cannot, therefore, be sold under it. On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that these buildings should not be excluded from the sale. To deal with the respective contentions it is necessary to have an accurate rendering of certain portions of the document which is in Tamil.2. In the body of the document there is the following passage:--'We have mortgaged to you for Rs. 15,000 the village of Kovillur which is included in the four boundaries given below and which is attached to our zemindari and which ancestrally belongs to us and is in our enjoyment...and which is capable of yielding an annual Melwaram kist of Rs...
Archakam Venkatapathi Deekshathulu Vs. Kathiramangalam Chenga Reddi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad594; 72Ind.Cas.900
Krishnan, J.1. The Munsif was wrong in thinking that he could dispense with the security required by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The provision is mandatory, as held in Assan Mahomed Sahib v. Rahiman Sahib 55 Ind. Cas. 977 :(1920) M.W.N. 375 : 27 M.L.T. 273. No doubt there is nothing in the section to prevent personal security being accepted if the Court is satisfied of its sufficiency but it would not ordinarily do so. In any case, the mere word of the defendant, against whom the decree is asked for in the suit, is no security at all. The order of the Munsif is set aside and he is directed to take the case on to his file and pass fresh orders according to law. Costs to abide and follow....
Perumal Chetty Vs. W. Kandasamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad362; (1923)44MLJ146
1. This is a matter which, acting under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act VII of 1870, I have referred to myself to decide, the difference having arisen between the officer whose duty it is to see that any fee is paid and the suitor as to the necessity of payment of the fee.2. The question is whether the decision of a Judge sitting on the Original Side in a contentious probate suit is a final judgment, so that a memorandum of appeal from it comes under serial No. 35 of Appendix 11 of the Original Side Rules as being from a 'final judgment' or under serial No. 36 as being from 'any other judgment or order'. The nature of the proceedings in contested probate suits is clear from an examination of the rules on the Original Side. By Rule 474, where a caveat had been entered, the petition which had been previously issued by those claiming to be the legal personal representatives to obtain the probate, and the caveat, shall be numbered and registered as a suit, in which the petitioner shall be ...
In Re: Ramudu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad365; (1923)44MLJ243
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction, of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, of the accused under Section 411, I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The stolen property is said to be a particular kind of gold thread which has never been sold before in the Madras market and which is easily identifiable. It would seem that about Rs. 40,000 worth of gold thread including this special kind of thread was stolen from the Port Trust premises sometime in April 1922 from certain boxes which had been imported from Europe and kept there. The theft was discovered in April but the stolen property was not traced till the beginning of June. On some clues which the police obtained they found that this particular kind of gold thread which is the subject matter of this case was purchased by certain Salem merchants from the accused's brother and his gumasta, and in consequence the accused was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property with referenc...
In Re: Arumugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.219
Spencer, J.1. The trial of Original Suit No. 88 of 1920 after the ex parte decree against the defendant was set aside may be regarded as the continuation of the trial of the same suit which first ended in a decree for the plaintiff.2. The definition of 'judicial proceeding' in Section 4 (m), Criminal Procedure Code, is not opposed to this view.3. At the time of dismissing the suit, the District Munsif commenced to take action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause against an order being passed under that section. Therefore, the decisions in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 1 Ind Cas. 597 : 32 M. 49 : 19 M.L.J. 42 : 4 M.L.T. 404 : 9 Cr. L.J. 41 and In re Padmabha liebbara 50 Ind. Cas. 485 : 42 M. 422 : 9 L.W. 315 : 36 M.L.J. 352 : 25 M.L.T. 296; (1919) M.W.N. 223 : 20 Cr. L.J. 309 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Whether the petitioner's acts amount to offences under Sections 209 and 210, Indian Penal Code, is not of consequ...
Ramudu Aiyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.538
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction by the Chief Presidency Megistrate of the accused under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The stolen property is said to be a particular kind of gold thread which has never been sold before in the Madras market and which is easily identifiable. It would seem that about Rs. 40,000 worth of gold thread including this special kind of thread was stolen from the Port Trust premises some time in April 1922 from certain boxes which had been imported from Europe and kept there. The theft was discovered in April but the stolen property was not traced till the beginning of June. On some clues which the Police obtained they found that this particular kind of gold thread, which is the subject-matter of this case, was purchased by certain Salem merchants from the accused's brother and his gumashtah, and in consequence the accused was arrested and charged with receiving stolen propert...
Kalagara Srirama Row and Official Receiver Vs. Kalagara Bapayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.845
Veakatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge allowing, at the instance of one K. Bapayya, execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 36 of 1.909. The appellant before us is the fourth judgment-debtor Sreerama Rao. The decree was obtained by the plaintiff, Bangaru Subba Rao, in August 1909. The first defendant is the father-in-law of the fourth defendant, Sreerama Rao, the appellant, and the second and third defendants are the sons of first defendant. The first defendant became indebted to the decree-holder and Sreerama Rao was a surety for payment of the debt. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, the first defendant was adjudicated an insolvent, and the fourth-defendant became in consequence mainly responsible for the payment of the decree-amount. There were other decrees passed against Sreerama Rao in similar circumstances; that is to say, in respect of debts borrowed by his father-in-law for the payment of which he made himself liable as su...
K. Shrirama Row and anr. Vs. K. Bapayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad189
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge allowing at the instance of one K. Bapayya execution of the decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1909-The appellant before us is the 4th judgment-debtor, Sreerama Rao. The decree was obtained by the plaintiff Bangaru Subba Rao in August 1909. The 1st defendant is the father-in-law of the 4th defendant, Sreerama Rao, the appellant, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of 1st defendant. The first defendant became indebted to the decree-holder and Sreerama Rao was a surety for payment of the debt. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, the 1st defendant was adjudicated an insolvent, and the 4th defendant became in consequence mainly responsible for the payment of the decree-amount. There were other decrees passed against Sreerama Rao in similar circumstances; that is to say, in respect of debts borrowed by his father-in-law for the payment of which he made himself liable as surety. In 1911, with a desire to en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›