Chennai Court August 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.
Kurukundi Sama Rao Vs. the Firm of Marwadi Vannapi Vajinji and Six ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.153; (1922)43MLJ745
Spencer, J.1. These are two suits upon mortgage documents executed by 1st defendant, whose sons are defendants 2 to 5. The appellant is a transferee from the 1st mortgagee, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 40 of 1918 and the 6th defendant in O.S. No. 43 of 1915, which is the 2nd mortgagee's suit. The 3rd mortg igee is the 7th defendant in both suits.2. The District judge dismissed O.S. No. 40 of 1918, holding that the mortgage deeds were not properly attested and therefore invalid I think he was right in preferring the evidence of the two witnesses whose names appear on the documents as attestors when they say that the executant did not sign in their presence to the evidence of the executant and the sister and the daughter of one mortgagee, the daughter being herself a mortgagee under one of the deeds, as the latter are likely to be interested in keeping the property in the hands of relations rather than allowing it to pass into the possession of the 2nd and 3rd mortgagees who are strangers.3...
Mittoor Moideen Hajee and anr. Vs. Edekkattu Chekkutti Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ561
Oldfield, J.1. These appeals came before one of us for admission; and notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor solely on the question whether they could be admitted or whether they were out of time. The point arises primarily, because the convictions and the sentences were passed under Ordinance 1 of 1922, a special enactment. The time provided for appealing under that Ordinance is only 15 days. Judgment was given in each of these appeals on the 31st March. The presentation in this Court was in Appeal 325, on the 24th April and in Appeal No. 342 on the 28th April. It is clear that this presentation was out of time, unless the appellants were entitled at least to an allowance for the period requisite for obtaining copies of the judgments appealed against. Such a deduction would of course be admissible in any appeal against a conviction under the ordinary law with reference to Section 12 of the Limitation Act. This Court has however recently held in Lingayya v. Chinna Narayana (1917) I...
In Re: Arumuga Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad59; (1922)43MLJ564
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The order of the District Magistrate cannot be supported. His view that a 'complaint' to the Police is sufficient under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is erroneous. He has evidently overlooked the definition of the word 'complaint' in Section 4 Clause (b). It must be made to a Magistrate. There being no such complaint in this case the 1st Magistrate was right in rejecting the case sought to be made under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The District Magistrate also suggests that on further enquiry an. offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code may be made out. But no such charge was brought forward and there is no evidence on record to show that an offence under that section was committed. Further enquiry cannot be ordered on the bare possibility of an offence being disclosed on further evidence being taken. There must be something on record to indicate that such an offence was committed or there must be something to show that further e...
In Re: Mittor Moideen Hajee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad95; 71Ind.Cas.217
1. These appeals came before one of us for admission; and notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor solely on the question whether they could be admitted or whether they were out of time. The point arises primarily because the convictions and thesentences were passed under Ordinance 1 of 1922, a special enactment. The time provided for appealing under that Ordinance is only 15 days. Judgment was given in each of these appeals on the 31st March. The presentation in this Court was, in Appeal No. 325, on the 24th April and in Appeal No. 342 on the 28th April. It is clear that this presentation was out of time, unless the appellants were entitled at least to an allowance for the period requisite for obtaining copies of the judgments appealed against. Such a deduction would, of course, be admissible in any appeal against a conviction under the ordinary law with reference to section. 12 of the limitation Act. This Court has, however, recently held in Kopparthi Lingayya v. Alaveli Chinnaraya...
Gopalaswamy Iyengar and ors. Vs. Nummachi Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad392; 74Ind.Cas.416
Spencer, J.IN APPEAL NO. 239 of 19181. This suit was brought to recover from first defendant certain sums of money paid by the plaintiff to first defendant's creditors in pursuance of directions contained in a sale-deed of immoveable property pruchased from 13th defendant who had previously purchased the same property from first defendant.2. The sale by first defendant to 13th defendant was effected on January 20th, 1907 through a registered instrument (Exhibit A) and Was for Rs. 5,000. That by 13th defendant to the plaintiff is through another registered sale-deed (Exhibit B.) dated August 22nd, 1908.3. When the plaintiff sued in Original Suit No. 3 of 1909 to recover possession of the lands purchased by him he was successful in the District Munsif 's Court but his suit was dismissed in the Sub-Court owing to a finding by the Subordinate Judge that his vendor's purchase under Exhibit A was a nominal sale which never took effect. There was a second appeal but the High Court declined to...
In Re: Jayaramulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ553
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This revision case is filed by accused 2 and 3 only in C.C. No. 152 of 1921 on the file of the Third Class Magistrate of Uttaramerur. They have been convicted under Section 55 Clause (a) of Act I of 1386, the Madras Abkari Act, for being in possession of liquor without a proper licence obtained for the purpose. The first accused has not come up here at all. It is argued on behalf of accused 2 and 3 that there is no evidence on record to show that they were in possession of the liquor. The finding of the lower court is that the liquor was found in a cattle-shed which belonged to accused 2 and 3 in which the first accused was selling the liquor. When the authorities came up on the scene the first accused seems to have locked up this shed and bolted and the door of the shed had to be broken open to get access into it. The lower court no doubt holds that the 2nd and 3rd accused should also be considered to have been in possession of the liquor because they were the owne...
In Re: Budda Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad141; (1923)44MLJ234
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The conviction in this case cannot be supported. The accused has been convicted under Section 430 I.P.C. which runs thus: 'Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause the diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which would extend to five years or with fine or with both. 'To bring the present case under Section 430, I.P.C. it is necessary to establish in the first instance that the accused's act amounts to mischief. What has been found in this case is that the accused bunded up a channel carrying water to the complainant's land. In order to constitute that act an act of mischief, it is necessary under Section 425, I.P.C. which gives the definition of the term mischief, to show that in doing so, he had the intention to cause or knew that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person. It is not sufficient to show tha...
Jayaramulu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad50; 71Ind.Cas.504
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This revision case is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 only in Calendar Case No. 152 of 1921, on the file of the Third Class. Magistrate of Uttaramerur. They have been convicted under Section 55 Clause (a) of Act I of 1886--the Madras Abkari Act--for being in possession of liquor without a proper license obtained for the purpose. The first accused has not come up here at all. It is argued on behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 3 that there is no evidence on record to show that they were in possession of the liquor. The finding of the lower Court is, that the liquor was found in a cattle-shed which belonged to accused Nos. 2 and 3 in which the first accused was selling the liquor. When the authorities came up on the scene the first accused seems to have locked up this shed,' and bolted, and the door of the shed had to be broken open to get access into it. The lower Court no doubt holds that the second and third accused should also be considered to have been in possession of th...
Oliyath Vazhayil Abuvakkar and ors. Vs. Oliyath Kunhikuttiyali and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.27
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry dismissing their suit for a declaration 'that the plaint properties belong to, their Thavazhi and that the decrees of the Temporary Sub-Court of Tellicherry in Original Suit No. 18 of 1914 and of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal No. 96 of 1916, preferred therefrom, are not binding on the Vazhayil Thavazhi' and for incidental reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is that they and defendants Nos. 41 to 60 are members of a Thavazhi, known as Oliyath Vazhayil Thavazhi, the first defendant is the Karnavan of the Tarwad of which the plaintiffs' Thavazhi is a branch, the defendants Nos. 1 to 37 are members of the Tarwad, the plaint properties are the Puthravagasam properties of the Oliyath Vazhayil Thavazhi, the other members of the Tarwad have no interest in the properties and that the first defendant as karnavan of the Tarwad is not entitled o be in, or to claim possession o...
(Appana Maha) Sadasiva Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Palakurthi Rajalingam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1933Mad382
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (appellant), for the recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due to him by way of contribution from the defendants in respect of a payment of Rs. 3,500 made by him in satisfaction of a claim for compensation or damages on account of the breach of a covenant contained in a registered sale deed, Ex. B. The first Court gave a decree in plaintiff's favour for a sum of Rs. 562-80 with proportionate costs;. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this second appeal.2. It is clear that by reason of the execution of the sale deed, Ex. B, by three persons including the plaintiff's deceased father, there was a joint covenant for title and quiet enjoyment in that sale deed. On account of a defect in the title of the vendors as regards the full extent covered by the sale deed, it is found by the first Court that the payment of Rs. 3,500 by the plaintiff's...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »