Chennai Court February 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Jaggavarapu Basavamma Vs. Jaggavarapu Seetareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad209; 66Ind.Cas.832; (1922)42MLJ566
1. I think the order of the Magistrate is right. The Counter-petitioner, agreed to maintain the petitioner, his wife with the consideration due to her position as wife and give her food and clothing but stated that he had not made up his mind whether he would cohabit with her. It is argued that this is not a sufficient offer under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All that proviso to Sub-clause 3 enacts, is that, if a husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to do so the Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her and pass orders.2. I do not think that there is anything in the Code which compels the criminal court to award separate maintenance to a wife whom the husband agrees to protect and maintain in a manner suitable to her position in life simply because he refuses to cohabit with her. Reference has been made to Marakkal v. Kandappa I.L.R. (1883) Mad. 371, where it was held that an offer by a Hindu having two...
Rajathammal Vs. Rajamanikkam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad188(1); 68Ind.Cas.38
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Appellate Court reverted the conviction and has found that no criminal forte was used, It ought to have reversed the order directing possession to be given, as the essential ingredient, namely, the use of criminal force, is wanting to give Criminal Courts jurisdiction to act under Section 524. I need only refer to Bat(sic)kala Pottiavadu, In re 12 M. L. J. 447. If possession has been given, it is the duty of the Court to restore the parties to the position in which they were before possession was wrongly given. Vile Bisweswar Singh v. Bhola Nath Pathak 18 C. W. N. 1147.,2. The petitioner will be restored to possession....
Nachikalai Vs. Aiyakannu Alia Chellaiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad233; (1922)43MLJ95
1. The defendant-appellant was sued by plaintiffs for recovery of property on the ground that it constituted the estate of one Neelamegam, whose reversioners the plaintiffs alleged that they were, and that the defendant had not been validly adopted by Neelamegam.2. The only question before us is whether the adjudication on this adoption in a certain previous suit is now res-judicata or whether the lower appellate court's order of remand for trial on the merits is correct. In the previous proceedings Neelamegam's widow sued the present defendant as 2nd defendant on the ground that he had entered on the performance of certain mirasi duties which were jointly owned by Neelamegam and the present plaintiffs, then 3rd and 4th defendants, the allegation being that these duties were performed by the present plaintiffs and Neelamegam in turns, by Neelamegam for two years in succession and the present plaintiffs for the succeeding one year. The widow sued the 2nd defendant without reference to a...
C.L. Narasimam Vs. N. Hanumantha Rao Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.572
1. These are appeals, Appeal against Order No. 218 of 1921 by the insolvent and Appeal against Order No. 251 of 1921 by a creditor, against an order of the District Judge of Ganjam on the latter's petition asking for an allocation of the former's salary as translator of the District Court to the Receiver engaged in the administration of his estate for the benefit of the creditors.2. The appellant in Appeal against Order No. 218 has objected to the lower Court's order on the ground that it was not one under Section 16(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, III of 1907, which governs the case, passed on a petition by the Receiver, but on one by a creditor. Reference to the record shows that in fact the Receiver was a party to the proceedings in the lower Court, had notice of them and acquiesced in the order which was made. We are very clear that the principle of Section 16(2) should be invariably observed in insolvency proceedings and that the Official Receiver or Receiver appointed should...
Gopu Nataraja Chetty Vs. Rajammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad394; (1922)43MLJ448
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal against the preliminary decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam declaring that the defendant is not the lawful trustee of the plaint properties and that it is necessary to frame a scheme for the management of the plaint charities and to appoint new trustees. The defendant appeals against the decree.2. The facts of the case are that one Appakutti Aiyar by his will dated 28th August 1844 and codicil dated 3rd September 1844 devised the greater portion of his properties for the performance of certain charities and appointed his maternal uncle Chinnappier and one Gopu Nataraja Chetti as trustees for carrying on the charities and further directed that one of his heirs should take part in the management of the trust properties. Appa Kutti Aiyar died in 1844. At the time of his death he had one daughter Dharmi Ammal. Another daughter Rajammal was born subsequent to his death. Chinnappier evidently declined to act as trustee as he does not appear to have ...
Abdukuri Venkataramadas (Dead) and ors. Vs. Pachigolla Gavarraju and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ153
Spencer, J.1. The properties concerned in this suit (O.S. No. 47 of 1916) consisted of Karnam service inam lands which were enfranchised in 1892 by Government and the title deed was granted to a woman named Mahalakshmi Ammal who was the last registered holder of the office. The appellants 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 260 are Mahalakshmi Ammal's daughter's sons, and the other appellants are alienees from her and from them after the enfranchisement of the inam which formed the emoluments of the office. These appellants were defendants in the lower court. The 1st appellant in Appeal No. 255 since deceased, was the husband's brother's son of Mahalakshmi and the other appellants are alienees from him, who were plaintiffs in the lower court. On the death of the last adult male holder, Venkatrama Doss, the Office was first registered in the name of his minor son, Venkatramanayya, and on that son's death his mother, Mahalakshmi, succeeded as being his nearest heir. Act III of 1895 which now regulates...
Gannabathula Venkamma Vs. Gannabathula Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad227; 70Ind.Cas.741; (1922)43MLJ33
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I do not think that the decree of the Privy Council reversing the decree of the High Court as to the adoption is a ground for review of judgment passed prior to the decision of the Privy Council, on the strength of the judgment of the High Court. In Kotaghiri Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao 24 M. 1 : 27 I.A. 197 : 4 C.W.N. 725 : 10 M.L.J. 221 : 2 Bom. L.R. 771 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 678 : (P.C.) their Lordships of the Privy Council observe that the ground of amendment must be something which existed at the date of the decree and that the section does not authorise the review of a decree which was right when it was made on the ground of the happening of some subsequent event. In Annamalai Chettiar Subramania Iyer 4 M.L.T. 86 Wallis and Munro, JJ., held, following the decision of the Privy Council, that the ground for amending a decree or review must be something which existed at the date of the decree and were of opinion that the decision of the Bombay...
Andukuri Venkataramdas (Dead) and ors. Vs. Pachigolla Gavarraju and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad173; 70Ind.Cas.677
Spencer, J.1. The properties concerned in this suit (Order Section No. 47 of 191,6) consisted of karnam service inam lands which were enfranchised in 1892 by Government and the title-deed was granted to a woman named Mahalakshmi Ammal who was the last registered holder of the office. The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 260 are Mahalakshmi Ammal's daughter's sons and the other appellants are alienees from her and from them after the enfranchisement of the inam which formed the emoluments of the office. These appellants were defendants in the lower Court. The first appellant in Appeal No. 255, since deceased, was the husband's brother's son of Mahalakshmi, and the other appellants are alienees from him who were plaintiffs in the lower Court. On the death of the last adult male-holder Venkataramadoss, the office was first registered in the name of his minor son, Venkatramanayya and on that son's death, his mother, Mahalakshmi, succeeded as being his nearest heir. Act III of 1895 whi...
ibrahim Sahib Vs. Konammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad25; (1922)43MLJ179
1. This appeal arises in proceedings for the execution of a decree in favour of the present 1st respondent. The decree is apparently in the usual from for possession of a Jaghir against the 1st defendant in the suit. There was one application for delivery by the decree-holder, first against the 1st defendant to be referred to as the judgment-debtor. Thereon delivery was ordered. The Judgment-debtor applied for slay, but the decree-holder said that the delivery was complete and therefore no stay was possible. An appeal was filed in this Court against the decree and C.M.P. No. 729 of 1921 was presented for stay of execution. The learned Judge, before whom it came, called for a report as to whether execution had taken place; and the District Judge reported that the A schedule property, that is the Jaghir, the property with which we are concerned, had been delivered. The learned Judge, therefore dismissed the application. Against his order of dismissal Letters Patent Appeal No. 11 of 1921 ...
Mr. Ramakrishna Mudali Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras, as Such th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad390; (1922)43MLJ566
1. The plaintiff in this case in 1904 executed a mortgage in favour of the Mylapore Benefit Fund to secure a loan of Rs. 1,500. The mortgage conferred a power upon the mortgagee to sell the property on failure by the mortgagor to carry out the terms as to repayment and so forth. In 1910 the Fund was pressing for repayment and the plaintiff was not able to repay. Thereupon the Fund announced its intention of selling the property. Just before the sale the plaintiff was enabled to produce one Daivasigamani Chetty who stepped into the breach, paid off the Fund and took over the security. Daivasikhamani Chetty, further more, made a new advance of I think Rs. 800 over the original consideration of Rs. 1,500 to the plaintiff and secured that by a further equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds of the same property that was covered by the original mortgage to the Mylapore Fund. Daivasikhamani Chetty fared no better than the Fund, because he, in his turn, could get no repayment. So he sub-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »