Chennai Court November 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.
Bhallamudi Kama Sastri Vs. Thirumamidi Kannamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad638; (1925)48MLJ284
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit is a speculative suit. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed it, and, after carefully hearing the arguments of the learned vakil for the appellant, I am satisfied that the decision reached by the Lower Courts is correct.2. One Vizanna died in 1888 leaving his widow Lingamma and two daughters, Kannamma and Sitamma. Sitamma predeceased her mother and we are not concerned with her. Lingamma died in January, 1914. During her lifetime, she made two sales and the present suit has been instituted questioning their validity. On the 8th of October 1890 Lingamma sold what is described as one and one-fourth vrithi (share) to one Garimilla Kurmayya (Ex. VI). The consideration for the sale is stated in the deed to be Rs. 500. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the sale can be upheld only to the extent of Rs. 207-12-0, one of the three items of consideration mentioned in the conveyance. The second transaction impeached is that evidenced, dated 20th March, 189...
Durgamma and ors. Vs. Kechammayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad792; (1925)48MLJ351
Ramesam, J.1. The suit was brought by the junior members of an Aliyasanthana family for declaration that a decree obtained against certain other members (including the two managers) is not binding on them. The plaintiffs were not parties to the former suit. The Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The plaint made various allegations of fraud in connection with the execution of the mortgage deed on which the former suit was laid but made no further specific allegations of fraud in the conduct of the former suit. In the cases relied on by the Courts below [Chinnayya v. Ramanna : (1913)25MLJ228 and Gandi Appa Razu v. King-Emperor ILR (1919) M 330 : 1919 38 MLJ 194] the plaintiff in the last suit was a party to the prior decree and was bound by it unless the decree was obtained by fraud. Those cases can apply to the present case only on the footing that the plaintiff, though not a party to the former suit, was represented in it by the ...
V. Janakiramayya Vs. Nimmagadda Brahmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad709; (1925)48MLJ457
ORDERWallace, J.1. The first point raised in this petition is whether the Lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to admit a criminal appeal which was out of time, that Court itself finding that the appellant had not shown convincing reasons for not presenting it in time. The provision of law applicable is Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, and under that provision the Court cannot extend the time unless it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The Lower Appellate Court was not so satisfied and therefore had no authority to extend the period and admit the appeal. Its proper procedure would have been to move this Court to exercise its powers of revision.2. As to whether we should now interfere and reverse the acquittal, it is a question of whether there has been any gross miscarriage of justice which ought to be remedied. I cannot hold that there is any such question. The appellant had been convicted of theft for removing earth f...
Sankaran Alias Kunhunni Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Vatakkiniyedath Kiran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad894; (1925)48MLJ691
1. The parties in this suit are members of a Nambudri illom in Malabar. The 1st plaintiff was the de jure karnavan and the other parties are anandravans. In 1918 the family entered into a karar which is filed as Ex. I and in this karar provision was made for the management of the illom. The 1st plaintiff, the de jure karnavan, gave up practically all his rights as such, retaining only certain privileges. The 1st defendant, who was then the senior anandravan, was appointed manager of one set of properties and the 3rd plaintiff was appointed manager of another set of properties. The karar is a very long document and provides in detail for the various acts of management and for the succession to the managership. After the 1st defendant had been managing the properties allotted to him for some time, the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3, who were the only other adult males in the illom were dissatisfied with him and called upon him to explain his conduct. He failed to do so and accordin...
Venkatachalapathi Iyengar Vs. Devaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad970
Ramesam, J.1. The suit is for contribution from the defendant in respect of money paid by plaintiff in excess of his share of the amount due on a joint promissory-note. The plaintiff and defendant-jointly purchased a land for Rs. 2,000. They executed a promissory-note for Rs. 950 to the vendor. The plaintiff's-case is that he owed only Rs. 200 out of the note with the corresponding interest, whereas the defendant contended that both were liable equally on the note. Plaintiff's suit is to recover what according to him, he paid in excess.2. The question is whether the suit falls under Article 41 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I think the words 'money due from a co-sharer' in Article 41 mean money due from him as such. In this case, the money is due from the defendant by reason of his being one of the makers of the promissory note. The fact that the promissory-note was itself executed by reason of the joint purchase does not make the amount, one due from a co-sharer. I do not think...
Sankaran Alias Kunhunni Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Vatakkimyedath Kirang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.346
1. The parties in this suit ar members of a nambudri illom in Malabar. The first plaintiff was the de jure karnavan and the other parties are anandravans. In 1918 the family entered into a karar which is filed as Ex. I and in this karar, provision was made for the management of the illom The first plaintiff, the de jure karnavan gave up practically all his rights as such, retaining only certain privileges. The 1st defendant, who was then the senior anandravan was appointed manager of one set of properties and the 3rd plaintiff was appointed manager of another set of properties. The karar is a very long document and provides in detail for the various acts of management and for the succession to the managership. After the 1st defendant had been managing the properties allotted to him for some time, the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, who were the only adult males in the illom were dissatisfied with him and called upon him to explain his conduct. He failed to do so and accordin...
V. Janakiramayya Vs. Nimmacadda Brahmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.278
ORDERWallace, J.1. The first point raised in this petition is whether the lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to admit a criminal appeal which was out of time, that Court itself finding that the appellant had not shown convincing reasons for not presenting it in time. The provision of law applicable is Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, and under that provision the Court cannot extend the time unless it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The lower Appellate Court was not so satisfied and, therefore, had no authority to extend the period and admit the appeal. Its proper procedure would have been to move this Court to exercise its powers of revision.2. As to whether we should now interfere and reverse the acquittal, it is a question of whether there has been any gross miscarriage of justice which ought to be remedied. I cannot hold that I here is any such question. The appellant had been convicted of theft for removing eart...
Venkatarama Iyer Vs. R. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1098
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the tenant is not liable to pay any amount of kaval fee. The District Judge has held that the tenant is liable to pay the kaval fee as part of the rent payable by him. The contention of Mr. Viswanatha Sastri is that the estate does not maintain any kaval now, nor does it maintain any kind of Police supervision and, therefore, the amount is not payable as kaval fee. The land is in what is known as Tanjore Palace Estate. It is well-known that 96 villages were in the possession of the Rajah of Tanjore till his death in 1855 and after his death the East India Company in the exercise of its sovereign powers annexed these villages. But in 1862 the Government granted these villages to the heirs of the late Rajah. It is in evidence that kaval fee was collected from the tenants for a long time at least from 1862. There is no specific evidence on this point, but the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it must h...
A. Rama Rao Vs. A. Thimmappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad732; (1925)48MLJ463
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of the plaint land on the ground that he terminated the lease granted to the defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the clause with regard to the right of re-entry was repugnant to the nature of the document.2. Mr. Sitarama Rao's contention on behalf of the appellant is that though the lease is called 'Kayamgeni Chit,' yet the body of the document shows that it was not intended by the lessor that the lease should be permanent. No doubt the document is headed 'Kayamgeni Chit' and begins with the words 'Kayamgeni Chit executed on the 10th Pushuabahula,' etc., and the counterpart is similar in terms and in the body of the document there is a recital that the lessee is to enjoy from generation to generation. But in the end of the document there is a clause ' When we require the property you should take half the value of the improvements for the tre...
Muthu Goundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad400
ORDER1. Without going into the question of whether this Court in revision can go into the questions of the bona fides of the accused's plea of guilty we prefer to base our order on the legal point taken by Mr. Rajagopalan for the accused, viz., that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict accused for an offence-under Section 182, I.P.C. as he had not a complaint under that section of the public servant concerned vide Section 195 1), Cr.P.C. We do not think that the difficulty of the absence of such a complaint is got over by arguing that an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. is contained in an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. and that therefore the Court taking cognisance of an offence under the latter section ipso facto takes cognisance of an offence under the former. The essence of an offence under Section 182 is not the falseness of the information, as it is the essence of an offence under Section 211 but the contempt of the lawful authority of the public servan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »