Chennai Court August 1922 Judgments
In Re: Kottammal Kalathingal Ummar Hajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ659
Oldfield, J.1. These two appeals can be decided on the same preliminary point. To take first, Appeal No. 581 of 1922 the accused (appellant) has been convicted of various offences in connection with the Moplah rebellion. In the first instance he and his father were placed in trial together before the Special Judge, Mr. Edgington. But after the trial had proceeded for sometime, it was decided to hold two separate trials. Mr. Edgington then began the trial of the present accused and, rather unnecessarily so far as we can see, exhibited the evidence already given at the joint trial, instead of treating it as given for the purpose of the trial of accused, whether alone or jointly. That, however, is not the point,, with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with is that Mr. Edgington ceased to be the Judge, beforj '.he trial of the accused was concluded, being succeeded by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson apparently on his own initiative, decided to hold the trial denovo. He did not apparen...
Tag this Judgment!Magdoom Mahamad Marakayar Vs. Bansi Lal Minor Through His Mother and N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.855
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. I agree with the judgment of Wallace, J., which I have had the opportunity reading and have nothing to add.Wallace, J.2. The contest in this appeal concerns certain houses, Nos. 100, 101 Thambu Chetty Street Madras, purchased by one Kalluram Lal, now deceased, on 31st December 1909. The plaintiff is the minor son of Kalluram's brother, Rajaram Lal, also deceased. The first defendant is the widow of Kalluram and the second defendant an alienee from her. The chief point at issue is whether the property is joint family property, the whole of which the plaintiff alone would be entitled to on the death of his father and uncle, or the absolute and self-acquired property of Kalluram Lal to which his widow succeeded in absolute right. The Trying Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant appeals.2. The property originally belonged to Kalluram and Rajaram as joint family property having been bought by their father in 1872. On 4th October 1894 both...
Tag this Judgment!Narantakath Avullah Vs. Parakkal Mammu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad171; 71Ind.Cas.65; (1922)43MLJ663
ORDEROldfield, J.1. We are asked to revise the order of acquittal of the 5th respondent on a charge of bigamy, punishable under Section 494 I. P. C. and of the other respondents on subsidiary charges. The petitioner is the complainant who prosecuted as 5th respondent's husband and the Public Prosecutor who has had notice, has under instructions taken no part in the proceedings. We should not ordinarily proceed at the instance of a private party in revision of an acquittal ; and we do so here, only because we are satisfied that a question of public improtance relating to the personal status of a substantial part of the' Moslem community is raised.2. That question is whether petitioner's adherence to Ahrne-diyan tenets made him a murtad or apostate from Muhama-danism. If it did, it had, it is not disputed, the effect of dissolving his admitted marriage with 5th respondent ; and such dissolution prior to her remarriage with 3rd respondent is her first and principal defence to the charge. ...
Tag this Judgment!Visvanathan Chetty and ors. Vs. S. Ethirajulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.467; 76Ind.Cas.467; (1923)45MLJ389
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This (C.S. No. 20 of 1921) is a suit by the plaintiff for the enforcement of pre-emption alleged to be conferred on him by two deeds of mortgage dated 27th November, 1915 for Rs. 2,500 and 25th April, 1914 for Rs. 3,000 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff who was then a minor and represented by his father and natural guardian, Kumaraswami Chetti. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are impleaded as alienees of the mortgaged property with notice. The case for the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant executed the two deeds of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, then a minor, that the first deed of mortgage contained the following covenant : 'that the mortgagor will, not, during the continuance of the security, in any way or manner deal with the scheduled property or any portion thereof either by way of sale, mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the mortgagee permitting and authorising the morgtago...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P. Palaniappa Chetti Vs. M.S.A. Pl. Palaniappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad234; (1922)43MLJ707
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad made under Order 40, Rule 4, C.P.C. against the Receiver appointed in O.S. No, 68 of 1916 on his file directing attachment of his property as he failed to pay into Court the sum of Rs 36,100 directed to be paid. It is not denied by the respondent that an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (s). But it is contended by Mr. Jayaram Iyer for him that as the amount which the Receiver was directed to pay was fixed by the Court under Rule 3 and as there is no appeal provided against orders under that Rule it is not open to the appellant to question in this appeal the amount fixed as due from him by the lower court, in other words he says that order has become final. We are unable to accept this contention. The fact that no appeal is given under Rule 3 is clearly due to the Receiver not being domnified by any order under that rule. It is only when an order is passed under Rule 4 that any injury will be caused to t...
Tag this Judgment!Nittala Achayya (Dead) and ors. Vs. Nittala Yellamma, Lately a Minor b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad109; (1922)43MLJ615
Krishnan, J.1. The question for our decision in this case is whether the lower court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the present suit.2. The suit is one brought by the plaintiff as one of the two nearest reversioners to the estate of a deceased Hindu for a declaration that the will set up by his widow as having been executed by him and as giving her absolute rights in his properties is a forgery and is void against him and for obtaining its cancellation. The suit was filed originally in the District Court of Godavari and was transferrd by the District Judge to the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry for disposal. That judge has held applying Section 20, C.P.C., that the cause of action arose wholly within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Kistna and that as the parties were all admittedly resident within that jurisdiction that Court alone could try the case and has directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the proper c...
Tag this Judgment!Pendurti Joseph Vs. Pendurti Ramamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad9; (1922)43MLJ441
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an application to confirm a decree for divorce given by the District Court of Godavari. It involves questions of considerable importance and questions our views upon which it is most desirable should become' public property. The suit was a simple one. The petitioner claimed divorce from his wife on the ground, as shown in his petition, of adultery with two persons, the first a man called T. Jivaratnam who is not cited as a co-respondent in the suit, and the second Boyi Guruvalu, who is cited as a co-respondent in the suit. The co-respondent did not appearand the evidence except the formal proof of the marriage consisted entirely of the evidence of the petitioner, and that evidence was a statement that two weeks after the marriage the respondent was found by him to be in adultery with one Jeevaratnam, and that she admitted her guilt before the elders of his church.2. As regards the second case against the respondent, his evidence was that the c...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. S.L. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ700
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This appeal is from an order of Kumaraswami Sastry, J. granting an application to execute a decree for costs of the District Court of Mysore. The judgment debtor objected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. J he facts so far as they are relevant are that the original decree was dated June 19th, 1911, and that in 1912 and 1914 attempts were made to execute the decree through the Small Cause Court, Madras, which failed through want of jurisdiction of that court and ended in about April 1914 by the sending back of the papers in the case by the Small Cause Court to the District Court of Mysore. In December 1916 an application was made to the District Court of Mysore to transmit the decree to the Madras High Court which failed owing to there being an attachment on the decree. A further application of the same nature was made on March 15, 1918 which application was dismissed by the Mysore District Court on January 30, 1919 but granted on appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.608
ORDER1. The question before us is in effect whether Section 350(a). Criminal Procedure Code, can be applied to proceedings in a warrant case before charge has been framed, that is, in effect, whether at that stage the proceeding is not a trial, but merely an enquiry. The authorities, in Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Emperor 5 M.L.T. 233 : 19 M.L.J. 157 : 9 Cr.L.J. 192 Tanguturi Sriramulu v. Nalam Krishna Row 38 M. 585 : (1914) M.W.N. 646 : 15 Cr.L.J. 673 and Telluchuri Venkatachennaya v. Emperor 56 Ind. Cas. 50 : (1920) M.W.K. 280 : 38 M.L.J. 370 : 21 Cr.L.J. 402 : 27 M.L.T. 178, are in favour of the view that such a proceeding is merely an enquiry; and we see no reason for departure from this series of considered decisions, two of them given by a Full Bench. There is, therefore, no legal objection to the Magistrate's order and the revision petition must be dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!S. Paramasivam Pillai Vs. Minakshisundaram Pillai Dead and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad96; 73Ind.Cas.863
Devados, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 314 of 1918. The suit is by one Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai for a division of the plaint property which belonged to him and to the first defendant or for the value of his share, should the Court consider that it was inequitable that he should get possession of a moiety of the plaint land. The main allegations in the plaint are, that plaintiff's father Chellaperumal Pillai was a First Grade Pleader at Sattur; that he purchased the plaint land in 1900 along with the first defendant under Exhibit D; that his father diedin 1902; that in 1904 when the plaintiff was a minor, the 1st defendant entered into an arrangement with his mother as evidenced by Exhibit A, whereby the plaint plot was allotted to the first defendant and another plot which belonged in common to his father and the first defendant was allotted to him for his share; that he attained majority on 3rd January 1914 and that the plaint plot was worth much more than R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »