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.
Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo Maharajulungar Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad604; (1923)45MLJ8
ORDER1. In O.S. No. 5 of 1921 on his file the Judicial Assistant Commissioner of the Agency Division dismissed an application for the appointment of a receiver; and the petitioner before us appealed against that order of dismissal to the Agency Commissioner. The Commissioner, on the ground that one of the parties to the proceedings was his ward, obtained an order from this Court, transferring the appeal to the District Court, Vizagapatam. We are now to transfer it from that Court to the High Court.2. The transfer to the District Court was made by us administratively and without notice to the petitioner, no dispute as to the correctness or sufficiency of the ground on which it was proposed being possible; and there is accordingly no reason why it should not be reconsidered at his instance. He urges that it should be, because this Court had no power to make it or to transfer a case from the file of the Commissioner to that of any Court except the High Court. This contention no doubt invo...
Karuthedath Pulakkat Manakkal Neelakandhan Nambudri, Uralan of Thiruna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.1041; (1923)45MLJ323
1. Following the observations of the Privy Council in the case quoted by the lower appellate Court, Lala Kalyan Das v. Sheikh Maqbul Ahmad (1917) 35 M.L.J. 169 (P.C.) interest at a sufficient rate may be substituted for the profits which the person in possession under a mortgage decree which was subsequently varied, enjoyed during the period between his execution of the first Court's decree and his giving notice that he had deposited the additional amount.2. It was unnecesary to remand this case for ascertainment of the mesne profits. The defendants were not entitled to recover possession merely because the amount of compensation for improvements was increased vide Manian v. Kuthiravattath Raman : AIR1921Mad609 and Sankaran Nambudripad v. Sankaran Nair I.L.R. (1921) M. 961; but under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure they were entitled to interest or other compensation consequential on the variation of the first Court's decree.3. We set aside the Subordinate Judge's order of r...
Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo Maharajulangar Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.745
ORDER1. In Original Suit No. 5 of 1921 on his file, the Judicial Assistant Commissioner of the Agency Division dismissed an application for the appointment of a Receiver, and the petitioner before us appealed against that order of dismissal to the Agency Commissioner. The Commissioner, on the ground that one of the parties to the proceedings was his ward, obtained an order from this Court, transferring the appeal to the District Court, Vizagapatam. We are now asked to transfer it from that Court to the High Court.2. The transfer to the District Court was made by us administratively and without notice to the petitioner, no dispute as to the correctness or sufficiency of the ground on which it was proposed being possible; and there is accordingly no reason why it should not be reconsidered at his instance. He urges that it should be, because this Court had no power to make it or transfer a case from the file of the Commissioner to that of any Court except the High Court. This contention ...
Ussan Kaism Sait Vs. the Scretary of State for India in Council Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ638
1. The property in dispute in this case is a small piece of vacant ground outside the boundary wall of the plaintiff's premises, those premises having access to it and the adjoining road by a gate.2. The suit by plaintiff is for a declaration of his right to the property outside his boundary wall. The Government registered the land as puromboke at the recent survey; and he claims it as his jenm property. Issues were framed as to the sustainability of the suit for mere declaration, the defendant, the Secretary of State, denying the plaintiff's possession as to the ownership of the property and as to the title set up by Government by adverse possession.3. The first objection to the Lower Appellate Court's judgment is that it contains no distinct finding as to title, its discussion of the evidence being confined to a conclusion that the measurements in the plaintiff's documents could not be accurate, although the question whether they could be trusted as to any part of the disputed land w...
Ussan Kasim Sait Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad116
1. The property in dispute in this case is a small piece of a vacant ground outside the boundary wall of the plaintiff's premises, those premises having access to it and the adjoining road by a gate.2. The suit by plaintiff is for a declaration of his right to the property outside his boundary wall. The Government registered the land as poramboke at the recent survey; and ho claims it as his jenm property. Issues were framed as to the sustainability of the suit for mere declaration, the defendant, the Secretary of State, denying the plaintiff's possession, as to the ownership of the property, and as to the title set up by Government by adverse possession.3. The first objection to the lower Appellate Court's judgment is that it contains no distinct finding as to title, its discussion of the evidence being confined to a conclusion that the measurements in the plaintiff s documents could not be accurate, although the question whether they could be trusted as to any part of the disputed la...
In Re: Marimuthu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad606; 76Ind.Cas.235
Odgers, J.1. In this revision petition it is urged that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the defence evidence, or, more accurately, has confirmed the conviction of the petitioners on insufficient or no evidence. I have carefully considered the evidence on which the Sessions Judge's findings are based; and I cannot say there is no evidence to Support them. It is a question of inference from the evidence and, in my opinion, the Sessions Judge was entitled to draw an inference from it against the petitioners. It is admitted that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly under Section 141, but it is urged that the conviction for rioting under Section 146 cannot stand as no force or violence was used. A toddy shop was pulled down; and spaches of toddy trees of considerable value were cut and destroyed. True, there is no evidence of force being used to any other person; but, in my opinion, violence was certainly used; and I agree with the observations in Samaruddin v. Emp...
Venkatanarayana Vs. Puvvada Narasimharow
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad638; (1923)44MLJ590
Oldfield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment and I am not prepared to dissent from his interpretation of Order 21, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code. In accepting it, however, I observe that the difficulty arising from the division of the interest of a deceased party to a decree between two legal representatives does not seem to have been contemplated in that Rule, since it does not include even a provision similar to Rule 18(3)(a) and that I am with all respect unable to apply the language used by Batchelor, J. in Ganappa v. Janki Ghosal I.L.Rule 40 Bom. 60 to the present case since that difficulty was not there under consideration. But the language of Rule 19 in my opinion is consistent only with the conclusion reached by my learned brother and I accept his conclusion that the agreement set up between 1st and 4th defendants was subject to a condition which is not shown to have been fulfilled and is therefore ineffective. I therefore concur in the order...
Yellapragadda Sriramachandra Venkatanarayana Vs. Ruvvada Narasimha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.865
Oldiield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment and I am not prepared to dissent from his interpretation of Order XXI, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code. In accepting it, however, I observe that the difficulty arising from the division of the interest of a deceased party to a decree between two legal representatives does not seem to have been contemplated in that rule, since it does not include even a provision similar to Rule 18(3)(a) and that I am, with all respect, unable to apply language used by Batchelor, J., in Madappa Ganapa Hegde v. Jaki Ghosal Gabn Ghosal 30 Ind. Cas. 893 : 40 Ba. 60 : 172 Bom. L.R. 689 to the present case, since that difficult was not there under consideration. But the language of Rule 19 in my opinion is consistent only with the conclusion reached by my learned brother and I accept his conclusion that the agreement set up between first and fourth defendants was subject to a condition which is not shown to have been fulfilled and...
Ammani Ammal and ors. Vs. Periasami Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad75; (1923)45MLJ1
Oldfield, J.1. The four items of suit property and others fell to two sisters, Vedambal and 6th defendant, in succession to their father; but Vedambal was in separate possession of the suit items under Ex. A, by which they, to the extent open to them, divided the estate. Vedambal died after alienating item 3 and a portion of item 4, to which this second appeal relates, to 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. The plaintiffs, the sons of 6th defendant, have sued for a declaration of the invalidity of those alienations and for possession of those items. The question is whether they are entitled to sue, the lower appellate Court having held that they are and remanded the suit for trial on the merits.2. In the plaint the title relied on is that the plaintiffs are the heirs of Veerabhadra, the father of Vedambal and 6th defendant; that is, reversioners of his estate. It is therefore impossible to proceed on the alternative ground, on which it was proposed to support the lower appellate Court's decis...
Avudayappa Mudaliar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad40
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 341, 447 and 504 I.P.C for having wrongfully restrained the complainant, who is an arrack renter, from going and bidding at the arrack sales held in the Sub-Magistrate's office, Sattur, and for having abused him.2. The facts that the petitioner pushed and obstructed the complainant and intentionally insulted him have been found to be proved by the evidence in the judgment of the Magistrate who tried the case and the Magistrate who heard the Appeal. The facts found by them constitute the offences defined in Sections 341 and 504. The language found to have been used by the petitioner towards the complainant was such as would provoke any person of ordinary temper to commit a breach of the peace. The conviction under the Sections must therefore stand.3. The joinder of a charge of criminal trespass (Section 447) in the circumstances of the present case was in my opinion uncalled for. The offence of cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »