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.
In Re: Palani Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ490
ORDER1. Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be applied here as Clause (4) of that section allows a second prosecution for an offence constituted by the same acts if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence subsequently charged. In this case, the accused were acquitted on the former occasion by a Third Class Magistrate who has no jurisdiction to try the charges now made. The point was considered in the case reported in In re, Venkatranga Josiar (1917) 40 IC 291 and following that ruling, I hold the Lower Court's order is right and dismiss this petition....
P.K. Veerarayan Alias Unni Anujan Rajah Avergal and ors. Vs. Ayyakutti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad742; 90Ind.Cas.794; (1925)48MLJ499
1. No appeal lies in this case, as this is of the nature of a Second Appeal in a matter of execution in a suit which is of the nature of a Small Cause suit. Vide Aithala v. Subbanna ILR (1888) M 116; Mavula Ammal v. Mavula Maracair 1906 17 MLJ 376; Amba Prasad v. Mushtaq Hussain ILR (1919) A 200; and Sant Prasad v. Bhawani Prasad ILR (1920) A 403. It is dismissed with costs....
(Chaganath) Muthappa Nair Vs. Poophil Alias Velambrudur Variyatha Laks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad735
Spencer, J.1. The preliminary decree is not in accordance with the preliminary judgment, as in the plaint the mortgagee asked for the mortgaged property to be sold and for payment of the amount found to be due to him out of the sale proceeds, and the judgment of the Court was 'The suit is decreed as prayed for,' but the preliminary decree as drawn up did not provide for any payment being made to the plaintiff, but provided for payment of the amount found to be due to a subsequent mortgagee and the balance to the mortgagors. There was an appeal which was dismissed with a slight modification as to the personal remedy. Now the Subordinate Judge after disposing of the appeal has declined to bring the first Court's decree in accordance with the judgment.2. I think he was wrong in thinking that he had no power to amend the decree and in declining jurisdiction. It was held in Shivlal Kalidas v. Jumaklal Nathaji Desai [1894] 18 Bom. 542 and numerous other cases that where there has been an app...
Changanath Kuttappa Nair Vs. Pooppil Alias Valamarudm Vaniyather Laksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.828
Spencer, J.1. The preliminary decree is not in accordance with the preliminary judgment as in the plaint the mortgagee asked for the mortgaged property to be sold and for payment of the amount found to be due to him out of the sale proceeds and the judgment of the Court was 'the suit is decreed as played for'; but the preliminary decree, as drawn up, did not provide for any payment being made to the plaintiff but provided for payment of the amount found to be due to a subsequent mortgagee and the balance to the mortgagors.2. There was an appeal which was dismissed with a slight modification as to the personal remedy.3. Now the Subordinate Judge, after disposing of the appeal, has declined to bring the First Court's decree in accordance with the judgment.4. I think he was wrong in thinking that he had no power to amend the decree and in declining jurisdiction. It was held in Shivlal Kalidas v. Jumaklal Nathiji Desai 9 Ind. Dec. 870 and numerous other cases that where there has been an a...
V.K. Manikka Mudaliar Vs. K. Mahammad ZiavuddIn Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad619; (1925)48MLJ221
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit to obtain registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The facts are as follows : The suit document (Ex. A) was executed on 29th November, 1919, by defendant in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff presented it before a Sub-Registrar for registration on 24th March, 1920, i. e., within four months of the execution. The Sub-Registrar ordered notice to the executant who appeared on 19th April, 1920, i. e., beyond four months. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the Registrar under Section 34 (4) of the Act. In so referring the matter, he seems to have forwarded the document also to the Registrar though this is not necessary under Section 34 (4), the Office of the Registrar and the Joint Sub-Registrar being situate in the same building. The Registrar passed an order on 4th May, 1920 'Registration refused' and gave reasons in which he held that the delay of the parties in appearing beyond four months does not 'come under urg...
Sudalimuthu Pillai Alias Appavu Pillai and ors. Vs. Peria Sundaram Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.25; (1925)48MLJ514
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly declaring that ad valorem Court-fee on Rs. 11,000 was payable on the plaint presented to him by the petitioner before me in this Court. The plaint was one under Section 92 of the Code, and in the plaint he asked that the defendants should be made to refund to the trust the sum of Rs. 11,000 at which figure he estimated the amount misappropriated by them. He also asked that certain properties in the possession of the defendants should be handed over to the new trustees to be appointed under the scheme to be framed by the Court, and these properties were valued at Rs. 90 at 5 times the annual assessment of the lands described in the schedule. The figure 11,000 was arrived at in this manner. He actually paid a stamp duty only of Rs. 10 on the plaint as for a declaration and urged that the other reliefs which he claimed in the plaint wer...
Sudalaimuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Peria Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad722
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code to revise an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly declaring that ad valorem Court fee on Rs. 11,000 was payable on the plaint presented to him by the petitioner before me in this Court. The plaint was one under Section 92 of the Code and in the plaint he asked that the defendants should be made to refund to the trust the sum of Rs. 11,003 at which figure he estimated the amount misappropriated by them. He also asked that certain properties in the possession of the defendants should be handed over to the new trustees to be appointed under the scheme to be framed by the Court, and these properties were valued at Rs. 90, at 5 times the annual assessment of the lands described in the schedule. The figure 11,000 was arrived at in this manner. He actually paid a stamp duty only of Rs. 10 on the plaint as for a declaration and urged that the other reliefs which he claimed in the plaint were...
V.K. Manika Mudaliar Vs. K. Mahammad ZiasuddIn Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.797
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to obtain registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The facts are as follows: The suit document (Ex. A) was executed on 29th November 1919 by defendant in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff presented it before the Sub-Registrar for registration on 24th March 1920, i.e., within four months of the execution. The Sub-Registrar ordered notice to the executant who appeared on 19 th April 1920, i.e., beyond four months. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the Registrar under Section 31(4) of the Act. In so referring the matter, he seems to have forwarded the document also to the Registrar though this is not necessary under Section 34(4), the Office of the Registrar and the Joint Sub-Registrar being situate in the same building. The Registrar passed an order on 4th May 1920 'Registration refused 'and gave reasons in which he held that the delay of the parties in appearing beyond four months does not 'come under urgent nec...
In Re: Doraiswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ190
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case accused was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi under Sections 420 and 507, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. On appeal the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore came to the same findings of fact but altered the conviction to one under Sections 385 and 508, Indian Penal Code, holding that Sections 420 and 507 were not the proper sections applicable on the facts; he also reduced the sentence to 21 months' rigorous imprisonment. In revision it is argued that on the facts found no offence has been committed by the accused under Sections 385 and 508 as all the necessary ingredients of those offences are not made out; and that in any event the Sessions Judge was wrong in convicting the accused under these sections as he had not been charged under them and that the proper order, if any, would have been one for a re-trial.2. The facts found are that the accused sent two anonymous letters, Exs. A and B, by post...
The Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Co., Ltd. Vs. Nattaji Pra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ400
Ramesam, J.1. Ten bales of yarn were consigned on behalf of the plaintiff at Sidhapur Railway Station on the B.B. & C. I. Railway to Bezwada. Only nine bales were delivered at Bezwada. The suit is for the price of the missing bale. The plaintiff got a decree against the B. B. & C. I. Railway Co. and the Company files the Second Appeal.2. The facts so far as they appear from D. W. 2 (which was accepted by the Courts below) may be stated. The wagon No. 7365 containing the ten bales passed through Dadar junction (the Junction connecting the B. B. & C. I. Railway and the G. I. P. Railway) when it was checked and the goods found correct. From there the train passed ex Waribunder to Kalyan. There was shunting at Matunga on the way. The seals of the wagons were intact then. The train next stopped at Kurla for shunting. It also stopped at Ghalcooper, Thana and Mumbra. When the train got in motion at the Mumbra Station, the Guard (D. W. 2) noticed the doors of two wagons (7365 and another) open...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »