Chennai Court October 1924 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.
Valluri Venkatasubbayya Vs. Pakati Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad941
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff claiming to be the reversionary heir to the estate of one Subbabattudu, has instituted this suit for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a sale-deed executed by P. Subbamma alias Chittamma and her husband, the 2nd defendant, is not binding upon him and the 8th defendant who is his brother. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that it was barred under Article 125 of the Limitation Act. I agree with his conclusion, though not with the reasoning by which the judgment is supported. Subbamma alia Chittamma acquired title to the property by the sale deed of 1893 marked Exhibit I. It purports to be a sale of two-thirds share in the property, the 7th defendant one of her sisters being treated as an owner of a third share, the plaintiff and the 8th defendant, the sons of the 6th defendant, another sister of hers being, assumed to be owners of the other share.2. The assumption, of course is entirely-wrong, because at the time the plaintiff...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Cheru Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1095; 87Ind.Cas.973
Wallace, J.1. this is an appeal against an acquittal of the accused in C.C. 305 of 1923 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Ponnani. The accused was charged for an offence under Section 170 of the Local Boards Act (XIV) of 1920 with keeping open a new private market. The Trying Court convicted him. The lower Appellate Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, and Government have appealed against the acquittal.2. The Taluk Board, Ponnani, has lately opened a public day market for the sale of arecanuts in Chalisseri Town. It is contended that accused keeps a private day market for the same purpose which is not licensed by the Taluk Board. This market was being held admittedly before the Taluk Board opened its market, and, when that was opened, the President issued a notice to the accused to show cause against prosecution for keeping an unlicensed market to which the accused replied that he has not been keeping any market at all.3. The Local Boards Act does not defi...
Velluri Venkatasubbayya Vs. Pakati Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.1016
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff claiming to be the reversionary heir to the estate of one Subbabattudu, has instituted this suit for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a sale-deed executed by P. Subbamma alias Chittamma and her husband, the 2nd defendant, is not binding upon him and the 8th defendant who is his brother. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that it was barred under Article 125 of the Limitation Act. I agree with his conclusion, though not with the reasoning by which the judgment is supported. Subbamma alias Chittamma acquired title to the property by the sale-de;ed of 1893 marked Ex. I. It purports to be a sale of two-thirds share in the property, the 7th defendant one of her sisters being treated as an owner of a third share, the plaintiff and the 8th defendant, the sons of the 6th defendant, another sister of hers being, assumed to be owners of the other share.2. The assumption, of course, is entirely wrong, because at the time the plaintiff ...
T.S. Subba Rao Vs. Appadurai Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.839
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of the plaint property alleging that he is the usufructuary mortgagee from the third defendant. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claim the property as theirs. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that in a previous suit O.S. No. 89 of 1916 the plaintiff sued for similar reliefs; and a reference was made to arbitration in that suit and an award was made by the arbitrator, and, therefore, the present suit is barred by reason of that award. The contention of Mr. Venkatarama Iyer for the appellant is that the award was passed on a reference by the Court without jurisdiction inasmuch as all the persons interested in the suit did not join in the submission; and, therefore, the award does not stand in the way of his obtaining relief in this suit. The facts appear to be; the plaintiff sued for possession of the property against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in Suit No. 89 of 1916 who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 herein and his mortg...
Meenatchi Ammal Vs. Karuppanna Pillai Alias Muthuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ183
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case a rather important question has been raised under Chapter 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the maintenance of a child. The petitioner was the mother of two children, a girl who is now aged about 14 and a boy of 10 years. When they were younger she had obtained from the Magistrate an order for their maintenance from their illegitimate father, the counter-petitioner, at the rate of Rs. 10 a month. The girl has been recently married : but it is not clear whether she has joined her husband or not. On the application of the father the Magistrate has reduced the maintenance given previously to a sum of Rs. 6 for the boy alone cancelling altogether the maintenance allowed to the girl. He does not give any reasons for his order but merely says, 'the girl is not now entitled to maintenance.' I take it that his view is, that as the girl is married she is no longer entitled to maintenance. The question is whether this is correct. A similar quest...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Karuppanna Pillai Alias Muthuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad491
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case, a rather import, ant question has been raised, under chapter 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the maintenance of a child. The petitioner was the mother of two children, a girl who is now aged about 14 and a boy of 10 years. When they were young, she had obtained from the Magistrate an order for their maintenance, from their illegitimate father, the counter-petitioner, at the rate of Rs. 10 a month. The girl has been recently married; but it is not clear whether she has joined her husband or not. On the application of the father, the Magistrate has reduced the maintenance given previously to a sum of Rs. 6 for the boy alone, cancelling altogether the maintenance allowed to the girl. He does not give any reasons for his order but merely says : 'The girl is not now entitled to maintenance'. I take it that his view is, that as the girl is married she is no longer entitled to maintenance. The question is whether this is correct. A similar...
In Re: Badsha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad496
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The accused was convicted by the 2nd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, of an offence punishable under Sections 420 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. On appeal to this Court by the accused, I was of the opinion that it was -expedient that the accused should be released on probation of good conduct, under Sect. 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code as he was only 17 or 18 years of age and a first offender. Accordingly, I directed that he should be released, on his entering into a bond of the kind, specified in Section 562, for R?. 1,000, with two sureties each for a like sum.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has reported that the accused has not furnished security and submitted the case for orders of this Court.3. The point to be decided is whether in the circumstances, the punishment originally awarded stands. I do not think it does. Sub-section 2 of Section 562 runs thus:An order under this section may b...
Ganshamdoss Narayandoss and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad861
Kumarswami Sastry, J.1. These suits relate to house and ground No. 2/100 Perumal Mudali Street, Madras, described in the schedules to the plaint.2. The following facts are not in dispute. One Govindoss Ganshamdoss had two wives. The first wife was Krishna Bai and the second wife was Ganga Bai. By Krishna Bai, he had a son Narayandoss and a daughter Kaveri Bai. Narayandoss had a son Ganshamdoss, who is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 755 of 1920. Kaveri Bai died issueless, in October 1908, and it is alleged that she left a will, dated 5th of April, 1908. By the second wife, Ganga Bai, Govindoss Ganshamdoss had three daughters, Saraswathi Bai, who died in 1923, Bhagirathi Bai who died in October, 1909, leaving a son Jamnadoss who is the plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 557 of 1921 and 290 of 1923 and Gulab Bai, who in a defendant in C.S. Nos. 755 of 1920 and 557 of 1921. Sarasvathi Bai, who was left a widow when she was quite young, subsequently became a convert to Mahomedanism and married a Mahomedan a...
Acharath Parakat Kunhi Pakki Vs. Mekkileri Karai Kavari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1028
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first defendant obtained an assignment of certain lands from the jenmi to whom it belonged. The second defendant has been a lessee under the jenmi. The plaintiff, under a contract with the second defendant, claimed the right to get the trees marked and tap them. The first defendant filed a suit against the second defendant and applied for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the second defendant from getting the trees marked or from tapping them. The application was adjourned by the Judge to whom it was made to the 28th March 1922. After the adjournment was made the first defendant petitioned the Abkari authorities to prevent the second defendant and the plaintiff from dealing with the trees in question in the manner they claimed they had a right to deal with them. Sending the disposal of the application for the issue of temporary injunction, the Abkari authorities made orders preventing the plaintiff from tapping the trees.2. The plaintiff institu...
Badsha Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.59
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The accused was convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, of an offence punishable under Sections 420 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. On appeal to this Court by the accused, I was of the opinion that it was expedient that the accused should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 562 of the Cr. P.C. as he was only 17 or 18 years of age and a first offender. Accordingly, I directed that he should be released on his entering into a bond of the, kind specified in Section 562 for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has reported that the accused has not furnished security and submitted the case for orders of this Court. 3. The point to be decided is whether in the circumstances the punishment originally awarded stands. I do not think it does. Sub-section 2 of Section 562 runs thus: 'An order under this section may be made by an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »