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.
In Re: Grandhe Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ195
Wallace, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for bringing a false complaint against five persons that they committed dacoity. The case requires detailed scrutiny as the lower Court has in my opinion admitted much evidence which was not admissible in law.2. The dacoity was said to be at 3 A. M. on 1st June, 1923. Accused's complaint was that six persons waylaid him, his daughter and his son-in-law (P. W. 17), P. W. 16 being also along with them carrying a luggage bundle and that they threatened them with violence and carried off the bundle.3. Eighteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution to prove the falsity of this complaint. P. Ws. 1 and 18 are formal witnesses. P. W.s. 2 and 3 are investigating Police Officers. P. W. 4 is the Village Munsif to whom the accused gave his complaint (Ex. A). P. W. 5 is a Karnam. (I shall refer to these witnesses later). P. W. 6 is a general witness to prior enmity between the present accused and those w...
The Acting Secretary, Board of Revenue (Separate Revenue) Vs. the Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad434; (1925)48MLJ161
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, and the question we are called upon to decide is whether certain documents entered into between the South Indian Railway Company and certain coal merchants, by which the latter are given leave to stack coal on small plots of land measuring 100 feet by 25 feet in station yards, arc required to be stamped as leases under Article 30 of Schedule I-A, or whether they are mere licenses which fall within the description of agreements not otherwise provided for under Article 4 (c).2. Ordinarily a lease is a grant of property for a time by one who has a greater interest in the property, the consideration being usually the payment of rent. A license, on the other hand, is a permission to do some act which, without such permission, it would be unlawful to do. All the cases to which we have been referred make the distinction between a lease and a license to depend up...
The Acting Secretary, Board of Revenue, Separate Revenue Vs. the Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad368
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, and the question we are called upon to decide is whether certain documents entered into between the South Indian Railway Company and certain coal merchants, by which the latter are given leave to stack coal on small plots of land measuring 100 feet by 25 feet in station yards, are required to be stamped as leases under Article 80 of Schedule I-A, or whether they are mere licences which fall within the description of agreements not otherwise provided for under Article 4(c).2. Ordinarily a lease is a grant of property for a time by one who has a greater interest in the property, the consideration being usually the payment of rent. A. licence, on the other hand, is a permission to do some act which, without such permission, it would be unlawful to do. All the cases to which we have been referred make the distinction between a lease and a licence to depend up...
M.K. Sheik Dawood Saheb Vs. Moideen Batcha Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad566; 87Ind.Cas.331; (1925)48MLJ264
1. The defendant's father obtained by Ex. A (dated 1st August, 1888) a usufructuary mortgage of the suit property as well as a simple mortgage of another property not the subject of the suit. It is now found by the Subordinate Judge--a finding that we must accept--that four or five years after Ex. A, the mortgagor told the mortgagee to take the suit property in lieu of the whole debt of Rs. 75 and therefore he enclosed it by a wall.2. If there was no delivery within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the case is on all fours with Usman Khan v. Dasanna : (1912)23MLJ360 , Munniguddu v. Maneam Gopalu Reddy (1920) 13 LW 400 and Kandasami Pillai v. Chinnabba ILR (1920) M 253 : 1920 40 MLJ 105. The defendants having been in possession for more than twelve years, the present suit in 1920 by the plaintiff claiming title from the original mortgagor to redeem is barred. But Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar argues that there can be no adverse possession, for he argues that part-perf...
(Vonnakota) Viraju Vs. (Vatsvaya) Bangaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad631
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that no fraud was perpetrated by the plaintiff putting the property in the name of the first defendant and that, therefore, he is entitled to get back the property which was conveyed benami for him to the first defendant. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff was able to defraud both the Government of the legitimate Court-fee payable on the plaint in O.S. No. 36 of 1906 and the widow of Veerraju with whom he had contracted to give half the property in case he succeeded in O.S. No. 36 of 1906. The second defendant after filing O.S. No. 36 of 1906, compromised with the defendants his claim against them and got a sale of some items of property in the name of the first defendant for his benefit and then withdrew the suit in consequence of which the Government was not able to get the Court-fee payable by the second defendant on his pauper plaint. Both the Courts held that by reason of the property being put in the name o...
Veerasami Naidu and anr. Vs. Sivagurunatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad793
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this Second Appeal is that the appellants should be given an opportunity of exhibiting certain documents in Court and for that purpose the appeal should be remanded for taking further evidence. It is argued that certain documents were put into Court by the appellants, but owing to some reason or other, those documents were not marked. Evidently the vakil who conducted the case for the appellants thought that those documents were not of much use. If he did not think so but carelessly failed to tender the documents in evidence, I do not think that the appellants can ask the appellate Court to give them an opportunity of proving the very documents which they ought to have tendered in the lower Court. The rule for allowing additional evidence in appeal does not permit the appellants to ask for an opportunity of adducing additional evidence on the ground that they or their vakils were careless in the lower Court. It is not necessary to consider this ...
Palakanda Chinna Suryanarayana Deo Vs. Mandina Appayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad947
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit is for the recovery of possession of the suit lands from the defendants. The main plea of the defendants is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 305 of 1917 (Exhibit I).2. The facts of the prior suit were as follows : The father of the present first defendant Appayya instituted O.S. No. 306 of 1917 against the present defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in that suit; and, on his death, Appayya, as his legal representative, continued the suit. The case for the plaintiff in that suit was that he was a tenant under Suryanarayana Deo, the plaintiff in the present suit, in respect of the plaint mentioned lands, that the 1st defendant therein collected rent from him on the ground that he was the authorised agent of Suryanarayana Deo; that later Suryanarayana Deo demanded and recovered the rent from him : and that, therefore, he instituted the suit for the recove...
(Unde Rajaha Roje Sri Raja Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachendra Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1026
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act on 28th July 1920. On 27th August 1920 the plaintiff filed what he called an answer petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer of Gudur who returned the petition and directed the plaintiff to file a plaint. The plaint was filed on 6th September 1920. The defendant's contention is that the suit is barred by limitation. The Deputy Collector held that the so-called answer petition dated 27th August 1920 was the plaint and that the suit was within time. The learned District Judge also held that the answer petition was practically a plaint and that the Deputy Collector was right in treating it as such. It is now contended before me that the Deputy Collector had no power to treat the petition as a plaint. It appears from the records that the plaintiff was misled evidently by what the defen...
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Adivi Lakshmana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ590
Ramesam, J.1. If an appeal is presented/against a person who was dead at the date of presentation, the Court may, underSection 153, Civil Procedure Code, permit the cause-title to be amended or may return the appeal memorandum for amendment and representation. We think that the Bench which decided Govindu Kaviraj Purohito v. Gauranga Saw : (1923)45MLJ231 . went toofar in dismissing the second appeal as incompetent, and in declining to exercise its power of correcting, errors underSection 153, Civil Procedure Code. If the appeal memorandum is not allowed to be amended the party may apply for a refund of the spoilt stamp and may present a fresh appeal. In any case, the Court will, if the appeal is out of time against the legal representative, have to excuse the delay in presentation before it can proceed to hear the appeal.2. Although the appeal may be incompetent owing to the wrong person being named as respondent, the Court which deals with it is acting in a proceeding in a suit and as...
Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Poochammal Alias Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad567
1. The suit was brought by the plaintiff a Hindu Reversioner, for a declaration that a mortgage by the widow of the last male owner (1st defendant and a Court sale in execution of the decree obtained on the mortgage by the 2nd defendant (the mortgagee) are not operative, after the death of the widow, so as to be binding on him.2. The mortgage was dated 1905. The suit on it was filed in 1909. It is conceded on both sides that the suit is barred, under Article 125, if limitation commenced to run in 1905 (that is, from the date of the mortgage) and is not barred, if it commenced in 1910 (that is, from the date of the sale). The Courts below-the District Munsif and the District Judge-held that the alienation substantially was in 1905 and that the Court sale in 1910 was merely consequential on the mortgage and that limitation began to run from 1905, and dismissed the suit.3. In Second Appeal, it was contended before a learned Judge of this Court, that the mortgage was not intended to have a...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »