Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Thachroth Hydross and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad694; (1923)45MLJ279
Ayling, J.1. The three accused in this case have been convicted of dacoity in the house of one Krishnan Nair of Olavattoor and murdering him by beating him to death. The offence was committed on the night of 24-10-1921 in the course of the Mopla rebellion. The prosecution evidence tends to show that about night-fall a band of some 25 armed rebels attacked a small hamlet consisting of about 5 houses of which Krishnan Nair's was one All were looted, the inmates of these houses escaped but Krishnan Nair was caught and beaten twice, the second time with fatal results, and his body thrown into a well. The well is said to have subsequently been filled up and the body has not been found; but, in the light of the evidence in this case, we see no reason whatever to doubt that Krishnan Nair was killed that night in the course of the dacoity. We have the evidence of four of the inhabitants of the hamlet who depose to this occurrence and to have seen the three appellants, who were well-known to th...
Balusami Iyer Vs. Venkatasami Naicken Alias T.S. Rangaswamy Aiyangar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad95; 75Ind.Cas.219
1. The lower Courts order is objected to, first, on the ground that the respondents before us, petitioners before it, were not entitled to apply for restitution when they had not, under Order XLV. Rule 15, obtained transmission of the order of His Majesty in Council to the lower Court, the order being the basis of their claim. Order XLV. Rule 15, no doubt, does make it part of the procedure for the enforcement of orders of His Majesty in Council that the person desiring to obtain execution of such an order shall obtain its transmission. But in the present case transmission has already been obtained by the 27th defendant, the successful appellant in the Privy Council. It would be inconvenient, if not impossible, to hold that each person interested in the execution of a particular order shall obtain a separate transmission when that order has already been transmitted. This ground of appeal is not sustainable.2. The next ground on which the appeal is argued, is that the petitioners are no...
In Re: Thackroth Hydross and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.695
William Ayling, J.1. The three accused in this case have been convicted of dacoiting the house of one Krishnan Nair of Olavatoor and murdering him by beating him to death. The offence was committed on the night of 24th October 1921 in the course of the Moplah Rebellion. The prosecution evidence tends to show that about nightfall a band of some 25 armed rebels attacked a small hamlet consisting of about five bouses of which, Krishnan Nair's was one. All were looted; the inmates of these houses escaped but Krishnan Nair was caught and beaten twice, the second time with fatal results and his body thrown into a well. The well is said to have subsequently been filled up and the body has not been found, but in the light of the evidence in this case we see no reason whatever to doubt that Krishnan Nair was killed that night in the course of the dacoity. We have the evidence of four of the inhabitants of the hamlet who depose to this occurrence and to having seen the three appellants who were ...
Kaniappa Mudaliar Vs. B. Chinnaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ329
Krishnan, J.1. This revision petition arises m connection with the election of a councillor for ward No. 5, of the Conjeewaram Municipality in October last. The petitioner before me Mr. Mudaliar and the 1st respondent Mr. Chettiar were rival candidates. The latter got 2 more votes than the former and would in the ordinary course have been declared elected; but the, Chairman held 2 of his votes to be invalid on the ground that the ballot papers on which such votes were recorded, Exs. A and B, did not bear the initials of the polling officer as required by Rule 14, Clause (1) of the Rules framed by the Governor-in-Council for the conduct of Municipal elections and published in the Fort St. George Gazette as notification No. 1120, dated 23rd November, 1920. Having done so, he proceeded to act under Rule 28 and draw lots as the number of votes for the 2 candidates had become equalised; and as the drawing resulted in Mr. Mudaliar's favour he declared him duly elected. Thereupon Mr. Chettiar...
Kanniappa Mudaliar Vs. B. Chinnasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad38; 73Ind.Cas.540
Krishnan, J.1. This revision petition arises in connection with the election of a Councillor for Ward No. 5 of the Conjeevaram Municipality in October last. The petitioner before me Mr. Mudaliar and the first respondent Mr. Chettiar were rival candidates. The latter got 2 more votes than the former and would in ordinary course have been declared elected but the Chairman held 2 of his votes to be invalid on the ground that the ballot papers on which such votes were recorded, Exhibits A and B, did not bear the initials of the Polling Officer as required by Rule 14 Clause (1) of the Rules framed by the Governor-in-Council for the conduct of Municipal elections and published in the Fort St. George Gazette as Notification No. 1120, dated 23rd November 1920. Having done so, he proceeded to act under Rule 28 and draw lots as the number of votes for the two candidates had become equalised, and as the drawing resulted in Mr. Mudaliar's favour he declared him duly elected. Thereupon Mr. Chettiar...
In Re: Garapati Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad687; 75Ind.Cas.768; (1923)45MLJ74
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The first point taken is that the warrant had become time expired when it was sought to be executed by the Amin and therefore he could not be treated as having acted in the proper discharge of his duty. The time fixed by the Munsif for the return of the warrant had however not expired. Only the time given by the Nazir had expired. The Amin derives his authority to execute the warrant in virtue of his office from the Court, that is the Munsif. The Nazir could not and did not take away that power. He only directed an earlier return as a matter of office routine, and that did not affect the Amin's authority. The same view is taken in Subed Ali v. Emperor I.L.R. (1913) Cal. 849. Following that ruling I must overrule the 1st objection.2. It is next argued that there is no evidence of any assault under Section 353 I.P.C. against the 1st accused. The prosecution witnesses prove that the 1st accused left the place where the disturbance was and came back with a stick in his ...
Kondal Rayal Reddiar Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal Alias Amirthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ186
1. This is an appeal by the husband against the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot, dismissing his suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st defendant, his wife, on the ground that he was guilty of legal cruelty. The plaintiff's case is that he married the 1st defendant about 18 years ago, that he lived with her as husband and wife till she left him, that he had to marry a second wife as the 1st defendant had no issue, that the 1st defendant left him about 19 months before he filed his plaint at the instigation of the 2nd defendant, her father, and the other defendants have induced her to stay away from the husband and that he was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant pleaded that the husband was guilty of cruelty, that she was ill-treated by him, that he falsely charged her with an attempt to poison him and that when she went to the husband's house at the request of her father, he pushed her out by the neck and t...
Shunmugappa and anr. Vs. Sangarya Chetty Alias Sangappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad125; 74Ind.Cas.120
Walter S. Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case plaintiff claims joint possession of certain trust property in respect of which he was appointed a co-trustee with his brother, now deceased. It would appear that he and the brothers lived together for softie time and the brother was the person who for many years was the only executor under the Will by which they were appointed trustees and was also the acting trustee of this trust 'which was created for certain charitable purposes. The brothers seem to have fallen out somewhere about 1907 and litigation ensued. The brother died in 1910 leaving two infant sons surviving him and a widow. From that time till now the widow and her sons continued to manage the trust property. The plaintiff now claims to, be entitled to joint possession and joint management of the trust property.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff was a trustee but it was said that his rights are burred by limitation. There seem to me to be three complete answers to that. In the first...
Kondal Rayar Reddiar Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal Alias Amirthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.166
1. This is an appeal by the husband against the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot, dismissing his suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the first defendant, his wife, on the ground that he was guilty of legal cruelty; The plaintiff's case is that he married the first defendant about 18 years ago, that he lived with her as husband and wife till she left him, that he had to marry a second wife as the first defendant had no issue, that the first defendant left him about 19 months before he filed his plaint, at the instigation of the second defendant, her father, and the other defendants have induced her to stay away from the husband and that he was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights against the first defendant. The first defendant pleaded that the husband was guilty of cruelty, that she was ill-treated by him that he falsely charged her with an attempt to poison him, and that when she went to the husband's house at the request of her father, he pushed her out b...
Kondal Rayal Reddiar Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad49
1. This is an appeal by the husband against the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot, dismissing his suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st defendant, his wife, on the ground that he was guilty of legal cruelty The plaintiff's case is that he married the 1st defendant about 18 years ago, that he lived with her as husband and wife till she left him, that he had to marry a second wife as the 1st defendant had no issue, that the 1st defendant left him about 19 months before he filed his plaint, at the instigation of the 2nd defendant, her father, and the other defendants have induced her to stay away from the husband and that he was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant pleaded that the husband was guilty of cruelty, that she was ill-treated by him, that he falsely charged her with an attempt to poison him and that when she went to the husband's house at the request of her father, he pushed her out by the neck and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »