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.
Marimbi Vs. Kakani Sundard Rao by Guardian Desiraju Venkayamma and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad751; (1925)48MLJ456
1. Assuming that calling one attestor and merely proving the execution of the document and his attestation is not enough and that the fact of attestation of two witnesses has to be proved, we think the requirements of law are satisfied in this case.2. D. W. 1 in this case, in the chief examination, proves his own attestation and the execution. He supplements his answer in the chief examination by his answer in the re-examination (which was not objected to) by proving the signature of the other attestor and the writer. The other attestor whose signature is proved is dead, but described himself on the document as an attestor. We must presume, now that his signature is proved, that he knew the law and described himself as an attestor because he saw the executant sign the document. This presumption can, of course, be rebutted by further cross-examination. The plaintiff did not care to ask for permission to further cross-examine the witness, for obvious reasons. Under these circumstances we...
In Re: Doraisamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad480
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case, the accused was convicted, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi, under Sections 420 and 507, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two 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, Indian Penal Code, 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, Indian Penal Code, 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 thorn and that the proper order if any would have been one for a re-trial.2. The facts found are that the acc...
The B.B. and C.i. Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Nattaji Pratapchand Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad745; 87Ind.Cas.79
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 were accepted by the Courts below) may be stated. The wagon (7365) containing the ten bates 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. Prom there the train passed ex Waribunder to Kalyan. There was shunting at Matunga on the way. The seals of the waggons were intact then. The train next stopped at Kurla for shunting. It also stopped at Ghatkooper, Thana and Mumbra. When the train got in motion at the Mumbra Station, the Guard (D.W. 2) noticed the doors of two waggons (7365 and another) open. But ...
Doraswamy Ayyar Vs. King-emperok
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad774
Krishnan, 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 two 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 503 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 Exhibits A and B by post to...
In Re: Doraswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.339
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case, the accused was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi under Sections 420 and 507, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. 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. 3. The facts found are that the accused sent two anonymous letters, Exs. A and B, ...
Muddana Adenna and ors. Vs. Muddana Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.202
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants.2. The relation between the parties is shown in the following pedigree: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |Lakshmayya. Ramanna Subbanna Adenna (alleged to (plaintiff) (1st defendant) have adopted | | 5th defendant), Veerayya | M. Subbamma (5th defendant). | (6th defendant) | | | Naganna | Predeceased son | M. Hanumayamma | (7th defendants). | ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | | 2nd defendant. Narasayya 4th defendant (3rd defendant).3. The parties belong to the Kamma sect of the Sudra caste. They belong to a village, Enamadala, in the Narasaraopet taluk of the Guntur District. The family is admittedly a rich family. There were originally four brothers. The eldest of them, Lakshmayya, was said to have divided himself from the family long ago. (D.W.--30 years according to Ex. XLVI). ...
Pandalapalli Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. G. Dyvadeenachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ215
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This case raises a somewhat novel point under Section 212(b) of the Estates Land Act. The complainant, the Shrotriemdar, distrained some cattle belonging to the petitioners before me for arrears of rent due to him. The cattle were not ploughing cattle but were two she-buffaloes and a calf. The lower Courts have found that the accused forcibly rescued the cattle after they have been distrained and have convicted them under Section 212 (b) and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 120.2. It is argued before me that Section 212 (b) does not deal with the rescue of cattle at all and that such rescue is not an offence under that section. Section 212 (b), leaving out the words inapplicable here, reads as follows : .--' forcibly or clandestinely removes any produce duly distrained under this Act.' The question to be decided is whether cattle can be brought under the word 'produce.' I. am inclined to think that it cannot. The words of Section 212 (b) seem to be taken from...
Pechiayee Vs. Vallaimuthu Velan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.437; (1925)48MLJ405
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I very much regret I cannot interfere with the order of the Lower Court in revision. The petitioner who was judgment-debtor paid the required amount according to the rules under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, apparently with a view to enable her to apply for setting aside the sale under the terms of that section. But it is now clear that there was no application made by her to the Court either in writing or by parol. A few days after this the Court confirmed the sale, and more than 90 days thereafter the petitioner applied for a review of the order of confirmation. The Lower Court has held that the review petition was barred by limitation and dismissed it. Assuming that the Lower Court erred in its view of the law with regard to limitation to be applied to the review petition, I do not see what jurisdiction I have to interfere. However that may be, in view of the fact that no application was made by the petitioner to set aside the sale, I see no substance...
Pachiayee Vs. Vallimuthu Velan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad639
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I very much regret I cannot interfere with the order of the lower Court in Revision. The petitioner who was judgment-debtor paid the required amounts according to the rules under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, apparently with a view to enable her to apply for setting aside the sale, under the terms of that section. But it is now clear that there was no application made by her to the Court either in writing or by parol. A few days after this the Court confirmed the same and more than 90 days thereafter the petitioner applied for a review of the order of confirmation. The lower Court has held that the review petition was barred by limitation and dismissed it. Assuming that the lower Court erred in its view of the law with regard to limitation to be applied to the review petition, I do not see what jurisdiction I have to interfere. However, that may be, in view of the fact that no application was made by the petitioner to set aside the sale, I see no substan...
Pandolapelli Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. G. Dyvadeenachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad578a
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This case raises a somewhat novel point under Section 212 (b) of the Estates Land Act. The complainant, the Shrotriemdar, distrained some cattle belonging to the petitioners before me for arrears of rent due to him. The cattle were not ploughing cattle but were two she-buffa-loes and a calf. The lower Courts have found that the accused forcibly rescued the cattle after they have been distrained and have convicted them under Section 212 (b) and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 120.2. It is argued before me that Section 212(b) does not deal with the rescue of cattle at all and that such rescue not an offence under that section. Section 212(6), leaving out the words inapplicable here, reads as follows-forcibly or clandestinely removes any produce duly distrained under this Act.' The question to be decided is, whether cattle can be brought under the I word 'produce.' I am inclined to think that it cannot. The words of Section 212(b) seem to be taken from the Beng...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »