Chennai Court May 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: S. Ramaswami Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad443; (1922)43MLJ710
ORDERRamesam, J.1. In this case the complainant is the petitioner. He filed a complaint under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti. It appears that he had previously filed a complaint for the same offence but on the police investigation, a charge sheet was prepared by the Police only under Sections 334 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The case was then heard by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Tirumangalam who, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution discharged the accused under Section 253(2), Criminal Procedure Code.2. On the present complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not taken the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 and remarking (1) that, if the complainant was really robbed, he would have applied to the Sub-Magistrate who tried the former case to transfer it (2) that the complainant's only desire is to somehow implicate the counter-petitioners who are the servants of the complainant's inveterate enemy and (3) tha...
Abdul Kadir Sahib Vs. U.T.M. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.648
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This second appeal is referred to me by reason of a difference of opinion between Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., the Referring Bench. The question referred is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The first Article of the Schedule to the imitation Act which is relied upon it Article 11.2. The effect of that Article is that, where an order is made under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on a claim preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of property in execution of a decree, the limitation is one year from the date of the order. The facts of this case are these: Property which was mortgaged to the present plaintiff was seized in execution by the present defendant and brought to sale. The sale was advertised to take place on the 20th of November 1913. On that day an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff asking that the proceeds of the sale which was about to take place should be held in Court because he claimed they belonged to him under hypotheca...
Jambu Ammal Vs. Nataranjam Pillai Minor by Guardian Ramasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad485; 70Ind.Cas.867
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dismissing an appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Coimbatore in Execution Appeal No. 326 of 1920 in Small Cause Suit No. 835 of 1916. The Principal District Munsif of Coimbatore on an application of the two minors, by their next friend and maternal grandfather set aside the decree and execution proceeding to in Small Cause Suit No. 835 of 1916 on the ground that the Court which decided the Small Cause Suit No. 835 of 1916 did not follow the procedure laid down in Order XXXII, Rule 3; that after knowing the address of the guardian of the minor defendants it did not order fresh notice to the guardian, but made the Head Clerk of the Court guardian of the minors and proceeded with the suit, in consequence of which there was no proper defence to the plaintiffs' suit, and the execution proceedings could not have he come known to the maternal g...
A. Mahalakshmi and ors. Vs. P. Subbarayadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.447
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The Magistrate found max there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace and refused to take action under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If so, he had no jurisdiction to pass the direction in paragraph 9 of his order. It is hereby set aside, vide Subbarama Aiyar v. Mariya Pillai 24 Ind. Cas. 967. The proceeds realised in the sale of the crops will be restored to the persons from whose possession the crops were taken, viz., the petitioners in this Court who admittedly raised the crops. It appears that the right to cultivate the land, was also put to auction and the land was let out to the highest bidder. If so, the rents realised also property belong to the petitioners in this Court.2. These rents will also be paid to them by the Magistrate....
H. Sheenappaya Vs. Rajamma Alias Padmavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad399; (1922)43MLJ174
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by a wife to recover arrears of maintenance from a leprous husband. Defendant appeals.2. Two of the grounds raised in the arguments, namely (1) that the defendant's leprosy was not in a virulent form, and (2) that the plaintiff having originally deserted her husband without any justifying cause cannot make his disease a pretext for demanding maintenance whilst continuing to live apart from him, may be disposed of briefly by observing (1) that it has been found by the Subordinate Judge upon the defendant's admission that the disease has now assumed a virulent form, and that finding being on a question of fact is final; (2) that plaintiff having begun to live separately in 1908 and the defendant having, when examined in 1919, admitted that his leprosy commenced 10 years ago, the existence of the husband's disease and the wife's going away to live separately are sufficiently connected in point of time to justify the inference that the separation was occ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›