Chennai Court July 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 Vallanki Venkata Chinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamindarini Garu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad586
1. It is argued that no appeal lies against the order of a single judge of the High Court on the ground that Krishnan, J's order is not a judgment within the meaning of the Article 15. We think we should be guided by the observations of the learned Chief Justice, Sir Arnold White, in Tuljamm Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar [1910] 35 Mad. 1, that an order, on an application for an interim injunction, is a judgment, within the meaning of this Article, as its effect is to render the final judgment effective, if obtained. This decision was recently cited with approval by our present Chief Justice, in L.P.A. No. 3 of 1923 : Vairatan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [1921] 14 L.W. 701 and Srimanthu Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayudu v. Srimanthu Raja Yalagadda Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayudu [1901] 24 Mad. 358, were oases of orders passed in execution and do not directly affect the question before us, nor diminish the authority of the case reported in Tuljamm Row v. Alagappa Chettiar [1910] 35 Mad. 1 . It m...
Sri. Raja Vellanki Venkatachinnayamma Rao Bahadur Zamlndarimi Garu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.956
1. It is argued that no appeal lies against the order of a Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that Krishnan, J.S order is not a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent Art. 15.2. We think we should be guided by the observations of the learned Chief Justice Sir Arnold White in Tuljaram Rao v. Aliquippa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M. 1 : (1910) M. W. N. 697 : 8 M.L.T. 453; 1910 21 M. L.J. 1. that an order on an application for an interim injunction is a judgment within the meaning of this article as its effect is to render the final judgment effective if obtained. This decision was recently cited with approval by our present Chief Justice in Krishna Ruddy. Thanickachela Mvdali 73 Ind. Cas. 105l : 45 M. L. J. 153 : (1923) M. W. N. 681 : A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 90 : 47 M. 136; Vairavan Cheltiar v. Ram. Chettian Chettiar 95 lnd Cas. 808 : 14 L. W. 701. and Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu v. Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Malli karjuna Prasada Nayadu (4) were cases o...
In Re: Mr. Josyula Ramachandra Rao, Second Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.977
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case a Second Grade Pleader, Josyula Ramachandra Rao, 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 5th of 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 peop...
Gnanamuthu Nadan Vs. Veilukanda Nadathi, Wife of Guruswami Nadan and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad542; 79Ind.Cas.2
1. This is a suit for a declaration that certain lands in Schedules A and B belong to plaintiff and for an injunction against the defendant's enjoyment of the same. Over 20 years before suit, plaintiff's younger brother, Guruswamy Nadan, died leaving a widow and a daughter, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The A and C schedule properties belonged to the family of plaintiff and his brother and the B schedule properties (except item 5) were brought to sale under a decree and bought by one Israel Nadan who conveyed to his brother in 1883 under Ex. B. The plaintiff and his cousins were undoubtedly divided but plaintiff alleges that the properties in question are his by right of survivorship as his deceased brother and himself were never divided. 0 schedule properties are admittedly in the possession of defendant No. 1. This the plaintiff accounts for by saying that it was in pursuance of an arrangement for the maintenance of 1st defendant. Both Courts have found that the plaintiff's case is false ...
Mukambika Shettithi and anr. Vs. Shiddaya Shetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad116; 75Ind.Cas.613
1. In this appeal it is contended that the question of adverse possession has not been properly pleaded or considered. The plaintiff at first based his title on purchase of mull right which is said to refer to a Judicial Decision in 1897 whereby the suit property was declared to belong to the ancestors of defendants Nos. 7 and 8. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were not original parties but subsequently added as parties to the present suit and the plaint was accordingly amended and plaintiff based his right on ownership also. It is urged for defendants Nos. 7 and 8 that this only arose in 1916 when the artha-mulgeni interest was assigned to plaintiffs by certain members of the Ka (sic) abettu Ma (sic) jeyas family who had held the land since 1887 at least. It is said that this title by adverse possession to the ancestors of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 ought to have been distinctly pleaded and that defendants Nos. 7 and 8 have been prejudiced by this omission. It is to be remarked that by 1919, the...
Aisamma Vs. Moideen Kunhi Behari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ690
Hughes, J.1. The point to be decided now is whether the question of 2nd defendant's title has been concluded against her by reason or the order passed in R.E.A. No. 243 of 1910 in R.E.P. No. 375 of 1910.2. The suit property-was attached in R.E.P. No. 375 or 1910 and the 2nd defendant filed a claim petition (R.E.A. No. 243 of 1910) claiming right to the property. The order passed on that petition is Ex. E. and rims as follows: 'There is no time to investigate into this claim. The petition is dismissed without investigation on the ground of delay. I may add that the sale will not affect the rights, if any, of this petitioner.' The plaintiff's contention is that as the 2nd defendant did not tile a suit within a year from the date of this order her right to the property is barred.3. Now if the order had been merely, 'This petition is dismissed without investigation on the ground of delay,' the matter would have been quite simple. It would be covered exactly by the Full Bench case, Venkatar...
In Re: Etakandan Kunhokker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.187; (1923)45MLJ473
Ramesam, J.1. This matter relates to the 3rd accused in Special Case No. 379 of 1922 on the file of the Ordinance Special Magistrate, Malabar. He was charged with others for an offence under Section 395, I.P.C. The case was ultimately withdrawn against him and he was acquitted. But, a warrant of commitment under Regulation II of 1819 was issued and he was detained in custody under it. Thinking he was convicted, he appealed to this Court. Our brothers Ayling and Odgers, JJ., who heard the appeal dismissed it as incompetent but, entertaining doubts as to the applicability of Regulation II of 1819 to a case of this nature, they ordered notice to the Public Prosecutor to show cause why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not be issued.2. We are indebted to the arguments of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Iyer who appeared for the accused amicus curiae and of the Public Prosecutor who appeared to show cause.3. In Queen v. Amir Khan (1871) 9 B L.R. 36 it was held that commitment under the analogous Bengal ...
Etakandan Kunhokker Vs. the Crown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad372
Ramesam, J.1. This matter relates to the 3rd accused in Special Case No. 379 of 1922 on the file of the Ordinance Special Magistrate, Malabar. He was charged with others for an offence under Section 395, I.P.C. The case was ultimately withdrawn against him and he was acquitted. But, a warrant of commitment under Regulation II of 1819 was issued and he was detained in custody under it. Thinking he was convicted, he appealed to this Court. Our brothers Ayling and Odgers, JJ., who beard the appeal dismissed it as incompetent: but, entertaining doubts as to the applicability of Regulation II of 1819 to a case of this nature, they ordered notice to the Public Prosecutor to show cause why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not be issued.2. We are indebted to the arguments of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Iyer who appeared for the accused amicus curiae and of the Public Prosecutor who appeared to show cause.3. In Queen v. Amir Khan (1871) 9 Bom L.R. 36 it was held that commitment under the analogous Beng...
Arsamma Vs. MoidIn Kunhi Beari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad160
Hughes, J.1. The point to be decided now is whether the question of second defendant's title has been concluded against her by reason of the order passed in R.E.A. No. 243 of 1910 in R.E.P. No. 375 of 1910.2. The suit property was attached in R.E.P. No. 375 of 1910 and the second defendant filed a claim petition (R.E.A. No. 243 of 1910) claiming right to the property. The order passed on that petition is Exhibit E and runs as follows:There is no time to investigate into this claim. This petition is dismissed without investigation on the ground of delay. I may add that the sale will not affect the rights, if any, of this petitioner.3. The plaintiff's contention is that as the second defendant did not file a suit within a year from the date of this order her right to the property is barred.4. Now if the order had been merely, 'This petition is dismissed without investigation on the ground of delay,' the matter would have been quite simple. It would be covered exactly by the Full Bench ca...
Viswanatha Aiyar Vs. Vengama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.52
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff alleges that in pursuance of a mortgage-decree his properties were sold; that a certain amount was realised and credited towards the decree; that the first defendant was the owner of some of the other properties also included in the mortgage, and that the amount paid in towards the mortgage by the 1st defendant was less than what he would be made liable to pay having regard to the value of those items. The plaintiff, therefore, claims in the present suit contribution from the 1st defend, ant, being the difference between the amount rateably due in respect of the latter properties and the amount actually paid by him.2. The plaintiff's right to maintain the suit is questioned, and to deal with this objection it is necessary to set forth a few facts.3. One Krishnaswamy Aiyar had two song, Seshasayi and Lakshmikantham, and they formed members of a joint Hindu family. On the 11th of September 1890, they mortgaged the properties described in Schedules A t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »