Chennai Court January 1923 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.
Nataraja Pillai Vs. Rangasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ328
ORDER1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore passed an order under Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting certain persons (respondents before us) from interference with the performance of a certain religious ceremony. Respondents are said to have disobeyed this order: and the Sub Divisional Magistrate thereupon Sectioned their prosecution for an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge; purporting to act under Sub-section (6) of Section 195 revoked this Section.2. We are now asked to revise his order: and the first ground taken is that, as the case falls under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, the power of revocation lay with the District Magistrate, not with the Sessions Judge, and that the latter's order was without jurisdiction.3. The question has to be decided with reference to the pro visions of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 195. There is no doubt that, if the general principle of Sub-section (6) is applied, the proper authorit...
In Re: Atakuri Saravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad484; (1923)44MLJ366
ORDEROldfield, J.1. This is an application by an accused person for revision of an order of the Sub-Magistrate of Gurzala, refusing to allow a private Vakil to appear on behalf of the accused, the present petitioners. It is admitted that the trial in which the private Vakil's assistance was required, has ended. There is therefore no order, which this Court could pass by way of revision of the Sub-Magistrate's order refusing him leave to appear which could affect that trial. It is said further that the accused petitioner was convicted and that his appeal is now pending before the District Magistrate. If so advised, he will be able to make it a ground of appeal that he was improperly deprived of legal assistance at the trial. In these circumstances it would be useless to proceed with this revision petition and it would be improper to do so, when the accused's contention can properly be put forward elsewhere. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed....
S. Parthasarathy Aiyar Vs. M. Subbaroya Gramany and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad67; (1923)45MLJ175
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. One Jambulinga owned two adjoining houses in Mylapore. He purported to mortgage them to one Subbusami who was a brother of the husband of Meenakshi, Jainbulinga's daughter. He then died and left a Will appointing his widow Mylathammal executrix and giving her power to sell his property for the purpose of paying debts and to enjoy what was left during her life, and bequeathing after her death what was left to Meenakshi. Probate has never been taken out of the Will. Some-years later, the widow purported to sell the property to Rajagopal her brother for Rs. 1,000. The documents of title were handed over to him, the sale deed was registered and in the presence of the Registrar a thousand rupees were handed over by Rajagopal to the widow. Subbusami joined in that sale by acknowledging the discharge of his mortgage which was for a larger amount, the sale deed providing that the sale was for the purpose of discharging that mortgage. Many years afterwards, Ra...
Nataraja Pillai Vs. Rangaswami Pillai and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad56
1. The Subdivisional Magistrate, Tanjore, passed an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting certain persons (respondents before us) from interference with the performance of a certain religious ceremony. Respondents are said to have disobeyed this order: and the Subdivisional Magistrate thereupon sanctioned their prosecution for an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge, purporting to act under Sub-section 6 of Section 195 revoked his sanction.2. We are now asked to revise his order: and the first ground taken is that, as the case falls under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, the power of revocation lay with the District Magistrate, not with the Sessions Judge, and that the latter's order was without jurisdiction.3. The question has to be decided with reference to the provisions of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 195. There is no doubt that, if the general principle of Sub-section (6) is applied, the proper authority to re...
Mathoor Graman Rama Pattar's son Ramasami Pattar and Ors. Vs. Manukuri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.627
Ramesam, J.1. The suit was brought to recover certain lands, known as Kunnathupadam lands on the ground that they belong in jenm to the Kurichimalai Deva-swom represented by the first plaintiff ; that they were granted to the first defendant on condition of rendering Kazhagam service in the temple; that he has ceased to render Kazhagam service and hence the lands are liable to be resumed; that the first defendant's right in the lands was sold in execution of a decree (Original Suit No. 25 of 1915) and purchased by the second and third defendants, and that the first defendant though called upon to surrender the lands failed to do so.2. The defendants plead that the lands were not held on condition of rendering Kazhagam service and were not resumable.3. I win now refer to the previous litigations bearing on the tenure under which the suit lands were held. In 1851 the predecessor-in-title of the first plaintiff sued the predecessor-in-title of the first defendant for possesion of the same...
Kalyanasundarappa Aiyar Vs. Chinnasami Servai Alias Chinnaswamy thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.13
Oldfield, J.1. In this case, the petitioner's suit was dismissed for default on 20th January 1921. On 24th February 1921 he applied for its restoration. That application should prima facie have been made not later than 19th February 1921. But it was contended before the lower Court and is contended here that the time available was extended with reference to the occurrence of holidays on 19th, 20th 21st and 22nd February 1921.2. As regards 21st and 22nd February 1921 there is no doubt that the lower Court was closed under Government Notification for the Mahamakam festival. 20th February 1921 was a Sunday. The only question is then whether the Court was closed on 19th February 1921. That day was a holiday as a penultimate Saturday. But the Court sat and the day was treated as not a public holiday with the special permission of the High Court, given in its order dated 4th February 1921.3. It is urged first that the lower Court should have held that the petition to it was in time with refe...
N.V.E. Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. N.A.K. Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad505; (1923)44MLJ413
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. Early in 1917 the 1st respondent Subbiar brought a suit, O.S. No. 566 of 1917, in the Court of the District Munsif of Periyakulam against Kumaraswami Mudali. In March, 1917 he attached before judgment certain piece-goods, the property of the defendant. They were sold and the proceeds deposited to the credit of this suit on April 11, 1917. The present appellant Nachiappa Chettiar brought a suit in the same Court against the same defendant, O.S. No. 678 of 1917, and on April 14, 1917 attached before judgment the money in deposit in Sub-bier's suit. He got a decree on April 19, 1917 and on June 7, 1917 he applied in Subbier's suit for payment out to him of the money in Court. While this application was pending Subbier got a decree on July 2, 1917 and on July 3rd applied for payment out to him, or, as it is called, applied for cheque. The present 2nd and 3rd respondents, Rangaswami Aiyar and Sundara Rao, brought suits in the same Court against the same de...
Sri Raja Venkatarangayya Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Morampudi B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.61; (1923)45MLJ238
1. This appeal relates to the resumption of service inams, which were resumed in Fasli 1309 by Government (1st defendant), but this resumption was cancelled and 1st defendant exonerated from the suit. The Zamindar's claim in his plaint was to eject the other defendants, the inamdars, but the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that the inam granted consisted of both kudivaram and melvarani. In coming to this conclusion he has relied on a presumption that an inam grant by a zamindar is a grant of the melvaram only. It has now been decided by the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Patanna I.L.R. (1919) M. 166 : 37 M.L.J. 42 and Venkata Sastrulu v. Seetharamudu 36 M.L.J. 585, no such presumption exists, but the decision may be supported on other grounds.2. Before dealing with the evidence in the case it was argued that inasmuch as a zamindar can be the owner of both varams, and as a landlord must be deemed to lease the whole of ...
Kelu Achan and ors. Vs. Cheriya Parvathi Nethiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad6
ORDEROldfield, J.1. In S.A. No. 286 of 1920. The first question we have to decide is whether this suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, by whom it was tried. The valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is, under Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, (VII of 1887), the same as the valuation for the computation of Court Fees. The reliefs asked for and to be valued are, as appears from the pleadings, which are given at unnecessary length in the District Munsif's judgment, three:1. Removal of 1st Defendant from tavazhi management.2. A declaration that a Karipanayam, dated, 2nd July, 1916, is not binding on any of the seventeen items in A schedule and a direction to Defendants in respect of items 1 to 15, which (it is not disputed) would be equivalent to a decree for delivery thereof.3.A declaration in respect of another Karipanayam and a decree for surrender of it and connected documents.2. There is no dispute as to the valuation of the first and third of these; an...
Venkatasubramania Aiyar and anr. Vs. Syed Usuff and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad708; (1923)45MLJ59
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is a curious story and on the facts as I am about to find them gives rise to an interesting and difficult question of International Law.2. After the outbreak of war, gold became exceedingly scarce in India and consequently enhanced in value. By a notification under Act XI of 1916, the Government of India made it illegal to import gold bullion or gold coins into British India and rendered gold so smuggled into the country liable to confiscation. This still further enhanced its value and offered additional temptation to smugglers. Many confiscations took place, some of which gave rise to suits tried before me.3. In this case, the 1st defendant Syed Usuff delivered at Pondicherry through one P. Narayana Doss Mehta of Pondicherry a quantity of American Gold dollars, 378 in all to a man called Parameswara Iyer on the 22nd of January, 1920. They were to be taken to Madras and were to be delivered to Syed Usuff there. Parameswara Iyer was to be remunerated by some co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »