Chennai Court March 1923 Judgments
In Re: P. Ayamad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad376(1)
Ayling, J.1. This case arises out of the Moplah rebellion. The appellants have been convicted of offences under sections 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence shows that on 18th February, 1922, a band of about 25 armed Moplahs, including the appellants, came to the Paramba of P.W. 2 where he, along with P.Ws. 3 and 4 were engaged in husking coooanuts. The prosecution witnesses fled, but were pursued by the Moplahs with cries of 'shoot the dog.' The 1st aroused fired and wounded P.W. 2, but not seriously and the prosecution witnesses managed to escape. On the very same day P.W. 2 gave a complaint, Ex. B, naming the present appellants. The latter belong to the same amsom as the prosecution witnesses and are well known to them. No personal enmity is shown: and there seems to be no reason why the identification of the appellants should not be accepted. The evidence of the single defence witness examined is immaterial.2. The appellants were not represented before us...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Maharajah K.C.i.E., Maharajah of Jeypore (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.269
1. This suit was brought by the Maharajah of Jeypore to obtain an order for separate registry in his name of certain portions of the Pachipenta Zemindari which were sold in Court auction upon the suit of the Maharajah of Bobbili against the Pachipenta Zemindar in Original Suit No. 1 of 1903 and purchased by him. The Vizagapatam District Court which passed the decree transmitted the decree for execution to the Court of the Government Agent of Vizagapatam and that Court held a sale of the right to collect Kattubadi from Mokhasadars whose Mokhasas were situated not only in the Agency tracts but also outside those tracts in the ordinary plain villages.2. Issue No. 16 raises the question whether the Agent's Court had any jurisdiction to sell the ordinary villages of Pachipenta Zamindari and whether the plaintiff acquired any rights by such sale.? The Subordinate Judge has now found this question against the plaintiff who preferred this appeal against the decree dismissing his suit.3. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Annavi Vs. Pichandi Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad123; 74Ind.Cas.777
Phillips, J.1. The evidence of plaintiff's witnesses shows that the payment was made towards principal and interest. If any portion was paid towards interest the ruling in Lodd Govindass Krishnadass v. Rukmani Bhai 21 Ind. Cas. 302 : 38 M. 438 : 14 M.L.T. 310 : 1 L.W. 529, is inapplicable and I agree with the decisions reported in Mohan Shaha v. Lakshu Karikir 6 Ind. Cas. 16, and Subraya Kamati v. Pakaya 4 Bom. L.R. 231, that the payment of interest saves limitation even though a part of the principal is paid at the same time. The Subordinate Judge has not, however, decided the question of whether the payment was made on the date alleged in the plaint. The suit is accordingly remanded for disposal in the light of the above remarks. The costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kurshit Kathumby Agent Mohomed Ismail Sheriff Saheb Vs. Hyder Khan Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad207
Krishnan, J.1. I think the order of the lower Court cannot be supported. It has been laid down in Gill v. Varadaraghavayya [1920] 43 Mad. 396 that to a suit for partition of immoveable property when the plaintiff is not a member of a joint family so as to make Section 7 Clause (4) of the Court Fees Act apply, but alleges that he is in joint possession, the article applicable is Article 17 Clause (6). The present case is one of a Mahomedan co-sharer who sues her other co-sharer for partition and possession of her share of her deceased father's properties and she alleges that she is in possession of some of the items as indicative of her joint possession in law with the other co-sharers of the deceased's estate. There is no case here of her being excluded from any part of that estate by her co-sharers or to put in another way her being ousted from possession of any part of it. In such a case as this the suit is one for partition and possession of one's share by one having joint possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrama Deo, Maharajah of Jeypore and ors. Vs. Lakhsminarasimha Garu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad144
1. This suit was brought by the Maharajah of Jeypore to obtain an order for separate registry in his name, of certain portions of the Pachipenta. Zamindari, which were sold in Court auction upon the suit of the Maharajah of Bobbili, against the Pachipenta Zamindar, in O.S. No. 1 of 1903 and purchased by him. The Vizagapatam District Court which passed the decree transmitted the decree for execution to the Court of the Government Agent of Vizagapatam and that Court held a sale of the right to collect Kattubadi from Mokhasadars, whose mokhasas were situated not only in the Agency tracts but also outside those tracts in the ordinary plain villages.2. Issue 16 raises the question whether the Agent's Court had any jurisdiction to sell the ordinary villages of Pachipenta Zamindari and whether the plaintiff acquired any rights by such sale? The Subordinate Judge has now found this question against the plaintiff who preferred this appeal against the decree dismissing his suit.3. The order tran...
Tag this Judgment!Majet Subbiah and Co. Vs. Tetley and Whitely
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ39
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the dispute arises under a contract, as to whether the vendors had broken the contract by failing to deliver at the proper time and whether the purchasers were entitled to sue in respect of the alleged breach and, if so, whether they are entitled to any and what damages.2. From the correspondence it would appear that there might be a counter-claim also on the ground that the vendors allege that the purchasers failed to take and pay for the goods as they were bound to do under the contract. The contract contains an arbitration clause Article 12 in the following terms : 'Should any dispute arise as to the interpretation of this contract or any matter in connection therewith or with the carrying out thereof, the same shall be submitted to arbitration, and it gives the merchants an option as to the form of arbitration. An application was made to stay the suit pending reference to arbitration under Article 12 of the contract. The learned Judge staye...
Tag this Judgment!Venkiteswarayyan and anr. Vs. Aswatha Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad703; 75Ind.Cas.491; (1923)45MLJ315
1. Second and 3rd plaintiffs, appellants, are here to contend that the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that Exhibit C, was executed during the pendency of an attachment, effected by a decree-holder, now represented by the 6th defendant. The Lower Appellate Court no doubt was right in holding that the attachment under Exhibit I was not terminated by the dismissal, with which the proceedings closed. It is only necessary to say with regard to that conclusion that it might have been reached more shortly, because the default of the decree-holder referred to in Order 21, Rule 57, cannot, in our opinion, be constituted either by his absence from the sale or his failure to bid at the sale, but must be a default in the discharge of some obligation laid on him by the Code or the Rules framed under it.2. Having reached that conclusion, however, the lower appellate Court did not go on to consider the result of the subsequent proceedings in Exhibit II. Exhibit II was another application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Charlotte Pritchard Vs. Walter Edger Pritchard
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ327
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Phillips, J., granting a decree nisi to a husband against his wife. He found, as a fact, that the wife was leading an immoral life since her marriage, that she committed adultery with persons unknown and that, therefore, the husband was entitled to a decree.2. I agree with the learned Judge that a great deal of the evidence is not very clear and definite, but you cannot expect, in such a case, to get very definite evidence. There is evidence, which the learned Judge accepted, that the wife after the marriage lived in a notorious house of ill-fame, that she at night time hung about outside bioscopes where she at any rate conversed with soldiers and that on one occasion she quarrelled in the street with another woman of bad reputation, the cause of the quarrel being according to the police evidence, that the respondent accused the other lady of taking away soldiers from her who had promised to go to her place. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arunachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad323; (1923)45MLJ543a
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The complaint in this case was of the offences of kidnapping a minor girl and theft of her jewels. It is contended that there was no complaint of an offence of enticing away a married woman for the purpose of having illicit intercourse with her (Section 498 I.P.C.) so as to give the Magistrate jurisdiction to take cognizance of that offence, as provided by Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.I am of opinion that the objection is sound and must prevail. I agree with the observations of Ayling, J. in re Pedda Anninagadu (1921) M W N 514 to the effect that the sworn statement and the written complaint of a complainant may be read together for the purpose of ascertaining what the nature of the complaint in any particular case was. As 'complaints' include oral allegations under the definition in Section 4(1)(b) it would otherwise be necessary to say that there was no complaint in cases where the complainant had no paper or was unable to write or get any one to w...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Charlotte Pritchard Vs. Walter Edgar Pritchard
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad150; 74Ind.Cas.139
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Phillips, J., granting a decree nisi to a husband against his wife. He found, as a fact, that the wife was leading an immoral life since her marriage; that she committed adultery with persons unknown and that, therefore, the husband was, entitled to a decree.2. I agree with the learned Judge that a great deal of the evidence is not a very clear and definite, but you cannot expect, in such a case, to get very definite evidence. There is evidence, which the learned Judge accepted, that the wife after the marriage lived in a notorious house of ill-fame, that she at night time hung about outside Bioscopes where she, at any rate, conversed with soldiers and that on one occasion she quarreled in the street with another woman of bad reputation, the cause of the quarrel being, according to the public evidence, that the respondent accused the other lady of taking away soldiers from her who had promised to go to her place. The learned Jud...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »