Chennai Court July 1923 Judgments
Rangaswami Aiyangar Vs. Veeraraghavachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ56
Hughes, J.1. The first question argued in this appeal relates to the alleged invalidity of the mortgage on the ground that it was not properly attested. This question, in my opinion, has not really been considered by the District Munsif in his judgment and he has given no decision about it He says no doubt in para. 10, ' P. Ws. 1 and 2 have both attested Ex. A. Their evidence shows that they attested Ex. A. at the request of defendant and that they were not present at the time of the execution of Ex. A by the defendant. In his written statement, defendant did not put plaintiff to proof of the suit mortgage deed, Ex. A. Plaintiff appears to have put these two witnesses into the box only to prove the consideration for Ex. A. The fact that P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not see the defendant execute Ex. A. by itself does not count much for defendant. Taking the evidence and the probabilities into consideration, I come to the conclusion that defendant has miserably failed to prove his case. I therefor...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.57
Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case, which is a serious one, the Pleader in question had quite clearly incited persons by public speech to disregard the local authorities, not to obey the Forest Laws, to boycott the Forest subordinates and to continue that boycott. He now comes before the Court and states that he has seen the error of his ways and expresses his regret for the attitude he then took in the agitations which were going on; and he states that he desires to have his sanad renewed and hereafter to cooperate in the administration of law and the maintenance of order. That being his expressed attitude we are willing to renew his sanad and express the hope that he will carry out fully the solemn undertaking he has given to the Court.2. This Court's jurisdiction in such cases is not a vindictive jurisdiction at all. Its main object in such a case is not to allow a man to practice in Courts, when he himself is counselling disobedience to the law and order enforced by those Courts. When a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mr. K.M., First Grade Pleader, Chalapuram; in Re: Mr. U.G. Firs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1923
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.214
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. I think these cases have been very properly brought before the Court, so that the two Pleaders, Mr. K.M. and Mr. U.G. may have the opportunity of explaining to the Court the circumstances relating to their imprisonment on the charges that were made against them, and, I think they have now stated very fully, and I am prepared to say very fairly, the facts of their respective cases. They both disclaim and disavow any intention at all of either disobeying the District Magistrate's, orders, or of in any way paralysing the administration of justice. They express Vogret that in the one case the sending out of a-telegram to the press; and in the other case the refusal to sign a statement before the Magistrate have been understood to show a spirit of disaffection or an intention either to disobey the orders of the duly constituted authorities or in any way to paralyse the administration or justice. I think that we. can accept their statements as being accurate and ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mr. K.M., First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad479
Schwabe, C.J.1. I think these oases have been very properly brought before the Court, so that the two pleaders, Mr. K.M. and Mr. U.G. may have the opportunity of explaining to the Court the circumstances relating to their imprisonment on the charges that were made against them, and I think they have now stated very fully, and I am prepared to say very fairly, the facts of their respective oases. They both disclaim and disavow any intention at all of either disobeying the District Magistrate's orders, or of in any way paralysing the administration of justice. They express regret that; in the one case the sending out of a telegram to the press; and in the other case the refusal to sign a statement before the Magistrate have been understood to show a spirit of disaffection or an intention either to disobey the orders of the duly constituted authorities or in any way to paralyse the administration of justice. I think that we can accept their statements as being accurate and accept their ex...
Tag this Judgment!Ambi Alias Subramanian Pattar Vs. Puthia Kovilakath Viathan Sridevi St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.366; (1923)45MLJ687
1. The respondent in this case obtained a decree for redemption of a kanom after the expiry of the kanom period. There was an appeal and the appellate Court modified the District Munsif's decree on certain points. It con firmed it as regards the main right of the plaintiff to redeem the suit property. In the second appeal two points have been pressed. First it is argued that before the decree-holder obtained possession, notice ought to have been given to the 1st defendant, and that the failure to give notice prejudiced this defendant in respect of his right to remove the improvements made by him if it appeared to him advantageous to him that he should do so and in respect of his right to demand increased compensation for the period during which he had been in possession after the passing of the decree. The second point argued is that the decrees which have been executed have been misconstrued as regards the interest awarded by the first court on costs. In support of the first point Mr....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Doraiswami Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.987; (1923)45MLJ846
Odgers, J.1. In this case one Duraiswami Udayan has been convicted of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Govindasami Udayan by cutting him on both hands and on the head with a sickle at Dharapuram on the 28th March 1922. A certain person named Thangaswami died in February 1922. The wounded man's grandfather and Thangaswami's mother's father were brothers. The accused is the mother's sister's son's son of Thangaswami. Thangaswami died leaving two widows called Parvathi Ammal and Chandrodaya Ammal. They had, apparently in accordance with the wishes of their husband, executed a release deed, Ex. M in favour of Govindaswami by which they released to him certain properties of their deceased husband in which they had a widow's estate. They refused to register it and Govindaswami had it compulsorily registered in the Dharapuram Sub-Registry on the 25th March 1922, three days before the occurrence in question. The reason for the unwillingness of the widows to register appears...
Tag this Judgment!Ambi Alias Subramanian Pattar Vs. P.K.V. Sridevi Styled Vala Thamburat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad102
1. The respondent in this case obtained a decree for redemption of a kanoin after the expiry of the kanotn period. There was an appeal and the appellate Court modified the District Munsif's decree on certain points. It confirmed it as regards the main right of the plaintiff to redeem the suit property, in the second appeal two points have been pressed. First it is argued that before the decree-holder obtained possession, notice ought to have been given to the 1st defendant, and that the failure to give notice prejudiced this defendant in respect of his right to remove the improvements made by him if it appeared to him advantageous to him that he should do so and in respect of his right to demand increased compensation for the period during which he had been in possession after the passing of the decree. The second point argued is that the decrees which have been executed have been misconstrued as regards the interest awarded by the first Court on costs. In support of the first point Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswami Udayan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad239
Odgers, J.1. In this case one Duraiswami Udayan has been convicted of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Govindasami Udayan by cutting him on both hands on the head with a sickle at Dharapuram on the 28th March 1922. A certain person named Thangaswarai died in February 1922. The wounded man's grand father and Thangaswami's mother's father were brothers. The accused is the mother's sister's son's of Thangaswami. Thangaswami died leaving two widows called Parvathi Ammal and Chandrodava Ammal. They had apparently in accordance with the wishes of their husband, executed a release deed, Ex. M. in favour of Govindaswami by which they released to him certain properties of their deceased husband in which they had a widow's estate. They refused to register it and Govindaswami had it compulsorily registered in the Dharapuram Sub-Registry on the 25th March 1922, three days before the occurrence in question. The reason for the unwillingness of the widows to register appears from ...
Tag this Judgment!Sellappa Goundan Vs. Masa Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad297; 76Ind.Cas.1018; (1923)45MLJ675
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit shortly for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 156 of 1915 on the file of the Sub Court of Coimbatore is not binding on the plaintiffs in this suit. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the decree is not binding on the ground that the minor plaintiffs were not properly represented in that suit by their father as guardian ad litem, as the interest of the latter was adverse to theirs. I think the lower appellate Court further intended in para. 21 of the judgment to find that the guardian did not raise the proper defences to the suit on the minor's behalf thus imputing negligence to him in the conduct of the suit. The appeal is by the 1st defendant as purchaser in 1918 from the decree-holder in O.S. No. 156 of 1915 and the plaintiffs are the sons of the 2nd defendant. The suit O.S. No. 156 of 1915 was in respect of a mortgage, (Ex. C.) and the money, advanced was utilised for the purchase of new lands - this is admitted. The suit was brought in 1915...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Second Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ684
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case a second grade pleader J.R. has applied for a renewal of his certificate. The facts stated to us by the District Judge are that he was convicted for refusing to give security, he having been called upon to do so by reason of two speeches said to have been delivered by him in the Godavari District at meetings held about the 6th April 1921 and on the 28th of January 1922. The effect of these speeches, as proved in evidence - shorthand notes being produced by the police officials who heard them-was instigating the people, among other things, not to pay taxes, and in one case not to pay taxes till there had been a meeting of the congress, the decision of which the respondent apparently advised should guide the population as to whether they should or should not pay taxes to the recognised authorities; It was also alleged that he stated that he objected to the English Courts and the methods of English Courts and recommended the people to eschew...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »