Chennai Court February 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.
T. Tiruvenkatachariar Vs. M.S. Chockalinga Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.234
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The accused were tried by the Third Presidency Magistrate in 1921 for getting the complainant arrested on a warrant and sent to the Civil Jail when he possessed a valid protection order. The acts of the accused were taken as offences falling under Sections 341, 342 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The trial ended in the discharge of the two accused, and this is an application to set aside the discharge and to order further enquiry.2. The reasons given by the Magistrate are (1) that the evidence shows that first accused was not present when the arrest was made: (2) the Bailiff who made the arrest takes the whole responsibility on himself and (3) the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused.3. The Bailiff (P.W. No. 3) no doubt stated in his evidence that he acted on his own interpretation of the protection order. But in his report (Exhibit L 3) he stated that second accused was worrying him to do his duty and to arrest the man and take him to Jail, and Pros...
Govindu Kaviraj Purohito Vs. Gauranga Saw and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.739
1. These are applications to the Court. to amend the cause title in a second appeal ana to exec se the delay in seeking that relief. It will, of course, be unnecessary to consider the second application, unless the first succee s. The circumstances in which the amendment is asked for are that the respondent, whose name is entered in the appeal as presented died before the presentation. We are now asked to substitute for his name those of the legal representatives. In the objection to this that an appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist Order 1, Rule 10 is relied on, but we do not see our way to apply it here, since it refers to suits instituted in the name of a wrong person, and we do not think that it is applicable to a case, such as the present. The power conferred by Section 153 is general, but again we do not think we ought to use it, while another course is open to the petitioner, that course being to file another appeal and to have the delay due to his...
Govinda Kaviraj Purohita Vs. Gauranga Saw and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad56
1. These are applications to the Court to amend the cause title in a Second Appeal and to excuse the delay in seeking that relief. It will of course be unnecessary to consider the second application, unless the first succeeds. The circumstances, in which the amendment is asked for are that the respondent whose name is entered in the appeal as presented died before the presentation. We are now asked to substitute for his name those of his legal representatives. The objection to this is that an appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist. Order 1, Rule 10 is relied on; but we do not see our way to apply it here since it refers only to suits instituted in the name of a wrong person, and we do not think that it is applicable to a case such as the present. The power conferred by Section 153 is general; but again we do not think we ought to use it while another course is open to the petitioner, that course being to file another appeal and to have the delay due to his ...
R. Kuppuswami Mudali Vs. S. Narayanaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad593; (1923)44MLJ510
Odgers, J.1. In this appeal, the defendant is the appellant. He together with two others, Amirtham Pillai and Packiria Pillai, were executors of the estate of Tambuswami Pillai deceased. Defendant appears to have collected some of the outstandings due to the estate and executed a promissory note in favour of Amirtham Pillai for Rs. 1,090 in 1916. The estate became vested in Tambuswami's sons, (it is said) after a decree of Court by which presumably the executors were discharged, and one of them Kailasam Pillai endorsed this promissory note to the plaintiff, acting, it is alleged, as managing member of the family. Two points were raised for the appellant: (1) that Kailasam Pillai acquired no property in the promissory note by virtue of the vesting of the estate in himself and (2) that he did not endorse as managing member. The two lower Courts found that endorsement to Kailasam by the late executor was unnecessary. The first Court puts it on the ground that all the rights of an executor...
R. Kuppusami Pillai Vs. S. Narayanasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.670
Odgers, J.1. In this appeal, the defendant is the appellant. He, together with two others, Amritham Pillai and Packiria Pillai, were executors of the estate of Thumbusami Pillai, deceased. Defendant appears to have collected some of the outstandings due to the estate and executed a promissory-note in favour of Amritham Pillai for Rs. 1,090 in 1916. The estate became vested in Thumbusami's sons (it is said after a decree of Court) by which presumably the executors were discharged and one of them Kailasa Pillai endorsed this promissory-note to the plaintiff, acting, it is alleged, as managing member of the family. Two points were raised for the appellant (1) that Kailasam Pillai acquired no property in the promissory-note by virtue of the vesting of the estate in himself; (2) he did not endorse as managing member. The two Courts found that endorsement to Kailasam by the late executor was unnecessary. The first Court puts it on the ground that all the rights of an executor vested in Kaila...
In Re: Marimuthu Alias Mari Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.961
William Ayling, J.1. The accused in this case was tried before the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly on charges under Sections 302, 304, 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the death of his wife. The Sessions Judge convicted him for an offence under Section 323 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment but acquitted him on the other charges. Against this acquittal Government had appealed under Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the same connection the case was taken up in revision under the orders of a learned Judge of this Court.2. The case against accused, as disclosed in the prosecution evidence, is as follows: Deceased, a young woman of 19, was on bad terms with her husband, accused, and had on several occasions returned to her parents' house complaining of his ill-treatment. She was last brought back from there within a week of her disappearance. On the 9th July, she was sent for to visit her sick mother and accused agreed to let her go but bef...
In Re: Marimuthu Alias Mari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad41
Ayling, J.1. The accused in this case was tried before the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly, on charges under Sections 323, 302, 304 and 325, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the death of his wife. The Sessions Judge convicted him for an offence under Section 323 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment but acquitted him on the other charges. Against this acquittal Government had appealed under Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the same connection the case was taken up in revision under the orders of a learned Judge of this Court.2. The case against accused, as disclosed in the prosecution evidence is as follows. The deceased, a young woman of 19, was on bad terms with her husband, the accused, and had on several occasions returned to her parents' house complaining of his ill-treatment. She was last brought back from there within a week of her disappearance. On the 9th July, she was sent for, to visit her sick mother and accused agreed to let her go; but, ...
Rasa Goundan and ors. Vs. Arunachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad577; (1923)44MLJ513
1. In the lower appellate Court this case was argued only with reference to limitation. We agree that Article 120 is applicable, because there is no necessity for the plaintiff, a stranger to the document in question, to have it set aside and no obstacle to his limiting his claim to a declaration of its validity.2. The failing, it is contended that the lower Courts Were wrong in applying Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to the transaction in question before them, because that transaction is a partition and partitions are not transfers within the meaning of Section 53. We are unable to understand how a partition is not a transfer of property within the meaning of that section, since it must be regarded, as it is described in Altabannessa Bibi v. Saftulla Mia I.L.R. 43 Cal. 504, 'as signifying the surrender of a portion of a joint right in exchange for a similar right from the co-sharer.' The argument attempted has in fact been supported only by reference to the words in that d...
P. Varada Reddi and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad299; (1923)45MLJ199
Krishnan, J.1. These Second Appeals arise from suits brought by the plaintiff landholder under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for the rent of Fasli 1325 alleged to be due to him from his -permanent occupancy tenants, the defendants. He claims rent according to the waram system but the tenants plead that they are bound to pay only money rents as' fixed in their muchilikas Ex. O series. The lower Courts have decreed the landholder's claim as brought and hence these appeals by the tenants.2. The main dispute between the parties centres round the first issue whether the tenure is rokkam or waram. The landholder is entitled to revert to the waram system unless the ryots establish that it has been superseded permanently by the cash system by contract, express or implied, between them and the landholder. See Ayyaperumal Odayan v. Ramaswami Chettiar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 362 and Muthiah Chettiar v. Periyan Kone 11 L.W. 311. Now in this case there is an express finding by the lower Courts...
Parthasarathy Reddiar Vs. Kandaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.954
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case a widow who had a son who attained the age of x8 and subsequently died unmarried, adopted the appellant who was the son of her daughter. The first question that arisen is, whether such an adoption with the consent of her deceased husband or with the consent of the sapindas is legal. This question came before this Court a short time ago in Tripuramla v. Venkataratnam 72 Ind. Cas. 278 : 44 M.L.J. 349 : 46 M. 433, and Wallace, J., and I decided that it was legal. I see no reason for departing from that judgment.2. The consent of the sapindas, one Kumara-swami Mudali, whose consent was necessary, it is alleged in this case, was obtained by a promise given by the mother of the adopted boy to pay him a sum of Rs. 200. The onus of establishing that was strongly on the respondents. I am not satisfied that he was bribed at all, from which it follows, in my view, that the onus was not discharged.3. Another interesting point was raised, namely, whether if the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »