Chennai Court April 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 Raja Sobhanadri Apparao Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. the Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ721
Coleridge, J.1. The petitioner applied under Rule 32 Civil Rules of Practice, for search of documents and was ordered to pay the fee prescribed under Rule 36. He, objects that there is no fee for Rule 32 and that Rule 36 applies only to Rules 33 to 35 as these sections come under a separate heading. 'Inspection of documents by a stranger' and that this heading covers Rules 33 to 36 and not 32 which is under the heading. 'Inspection of proceedings by a party.'2. I cannot agree for if so when he had put in his memorandum under Rule 32 there the matter would end for the Rule does not say what is to happen thereafter. It is Rule 36 that says 'If leave is granted the following fees shall be paid and this must govern all the sections where leave is being asked.3. I dismiss the petition with costs....
K. Venkataramayya Vs. K. Pitchamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad164
Phillips, J.1. In this case the parties will be styled according to their designation in appeal No. 332 of 1920 presented against the decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1919. The plaintiff is the minor natural brother of one Raghavayya who was adopted by one Guruvarayudu and his wife Pitchamma, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is Raghavayya's widow and the 3rd defendant is her father, the 4th defendant being the minor son of the 3rd defendant. This Raghavayya died on the 20th of November, 1915 leaving a Will, Exhibit A, which was executed on the 17th November, 1915 and registered on the 20th. Under this Will he left certain properties to his mother, his wife and his father-in-law respectively and also the family house to the plaintiff and made the plaintiff his residuary legatee. Shortly after his death, disputes arose between the plaintiff's father and guardian and defendants 1 to 3, and a criminal complaint was filed by plaintiff's guardian against defendants 1 and 3 and their gumasta unde...
Kudithipudi Venkataeamayya Vs. Kudithipudi Pitchamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.274
Phillips, J.1. In this case the parties will be styled according to their designation in appeal No. 332 of 1920 presented against the decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1919. The plaintiff is the minor natural brother of one Raghavayya who was adopted by one Guruvarayudu and his wife Pitchamma, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is Raghavayya's widow and the 3rd defendant is her father, the 4th defendant being the minor son of the 3rd defendant. This Raghavayya died on the 20th of November 1915 leaving a Will, Ex. A, which was executed on the 17th November 1915 and registered on the 20th. Under this Will he left certain properties to his mother, his wife and his father-in-law respectively and among the properties found in Sitamma's house were a number of promissory-notes executed in favour of the testator Raghavayya. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why these properties were secreted in Sitamma's house and it can only have been with a view to evade the claims of the plaintiff w...
(Sobhanadri) Apparao Vs. the Government Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad242
Coleridge, J.1. The petitioner applied under Rule 32 Civil Rules of Practice, for search of documents and was ordered to pay the fee prescribed under Rule 36. He objects that there is no fee for Rule 32 and that Rule 36 applies only to Rules 33 to 35 as these sections come under a separate heading, 'Inspection of documents by a stranger' and that this heading covers Rules 33 to 36 and not 32 which is under the heading, 'Inspection of proceeding by a party.'2. I cannot agree for if so when he had put in his memorandum under Rule 32 there the matter would end for the Rule does not say what is to happen thereafter. It is Rule 36 that says 'If leave is granted the following fees shall be paid and this must govern all the sections where leave is being asked.3. I dismiss the petition with costs....
Ponnusami Odayar and ors. Vs. Ramasami Thathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad15; (1923)45MLJ224
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This Criminal Revision case has been referred to the Full Bench on the question whether in summons cases the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be applied, that is, is the Court bound, for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, to question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence. The inconvenience of this course is manifest in view of the pro visions of Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which re quire the taking down of any such question in full in the language in which the accused is examined, or, where that is not practicable, in the language of the Court or in English, and that the record shall be shown or read to him and, if necessary, interpreted. The great majority of summons cases are of a petty nature and a strict application of the section must nec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›