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.
Kandalam Krishnamacharyulu and anr. Vs. Sathuluri Vijayasarathi by Mot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ467
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. The suit was brought by them as reversioners to recover possession of certain properties alienated by the widow of the last male owner. The last male owner was one Vijayasarathi who died in 1867. He died while he was a minor. In the year of his death the two alienations in question were effected on behalf of the widow by her father by Exs. I and II. Two points arose for decision in the case, (1) whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Vijayasarathi, and (2) whether the alienations are binding on the reversioners. The District Munsif decided both the points in favour of the plaintiffs and gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found both the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal.2. In Second Appeal both the findings of the Subordinate judge are attacked before me. Taking the first point, namely, that of reversionership, the Subordinate ...
Krishna Ayyar and anr. Vs. Ayyappa Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad577
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise the conviction under Section 430, I.P.C. of the petitioners which was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Koilpatti.2. It is contended that on the findings of the appellate Magistrate the offence charged under Section 430, I.P.C., has not been made out. The appellate Magistrate found that a channel existed between Re-Sarvey Nos. 252 and 253 belonging to the accused and that it was a part of the channel which carried water from the Periakulam tank to the complainant's lands, Ra-Survey Nos. 271 and 272. He also found that part of the channel between Re-Survey Nos. 252 'and 253 had been filled up by the accused recently. It is contended that these findings are not sufficient to constitute the offence of mischief. The offence as defined in the Penal Code requires as an essential element of it that the accused had the intention to cause or the knowledge that their act was likely to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Dr...
Kandulam Krishnamacharlu Vs. Sathuluri Vijayasarathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad823
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. The suit was brought by them as reversioners to recover possession of certain properties alienated by the widow of the last male owner. The last male owner was one Vijayasaradhi who died in 1867. He died while he was a minor. In the year of his death the two alienations in question were effected on behalf of the widow by her father by Exhibits 1 and 2. Two points arose for decision in the case, (1) whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Vijayasaradhi and (2) whether the alienations are binding on the reversioners. The District Munsiff decided both the points in favour of the plaintiffs and gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found both the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the second appeal.2. In second appeal both the findings of the Subordinate Judge are attacked before me. Taking the first point namely that of reversionership, the Subordinate ...
L. Pattabi Chetty Vs. Gopala Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1181
1. We think that the District Judge's order is without jurisdiction.2. He had jurisdiction to interfere under Section 476-A of the Criminal P.C., and file a complaint only in two contingencies : (a) that the District Munsif had not made a complaint under Section 476; (b) that he had rejected an application to make a complaint. Contingency (b) does not apply obviously, As to contingency (a) the District Munsif had, no doubt, not made a complaint under Section 476, But when ha passed his sanction order he had no power or jurisdiction to make such a complaint which must be a complaint under the amended Section 476 since that section was not then in force. We cannot hold that Section 476-A was ever intended to apply to a case of a Court not invoking a power which it had never power to invoke.2. The lower Court's order is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is, therefore, set aside. It is open to respondents to proceed, as they should have done, when the sanction order lapsed by the passin...
(Vettiparambil) Ahammad Vs. Cheriath Chennamangalath Manakkal Karnavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1127
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts are somewhat complicated, and I think it is necessary to state them in great detail. Chiyamu was apparently the original owner of the property, but by Exhibit B, dated the 15th January, 1888, he acknowledged the plaintiff's title and obtained a kanom (mortgage) of the property. Whatever the rights originally of the parties were, that on the date of Exhibit B the plaintiff became the owner of it there is no question. Chiyamu, who was thus only a mortgagee, executed a deed of sale, Exhibit 3, on the 8th February, 1897, in favour of his son-in-law Mooppan. The sale was made on the footing that Chiyamu was absolutely entitled to that property. In October off November of the same year Chiyamu died). and on the 23rd June, 1898, a partition, Exhibit G. was effected among his heirs and the kanom right of Chiyamu over the property in question fell to the share or Aiyasabi, his daughter. The sale in favour of Mooppan was thus ignored in the deed of partition, and...
Kadiyala Baswayya Naidu Vs. Muniswami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1155
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for redemption of the suit lands held by the first defendant on a mortgage from Defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The lands are held by Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as temple service inam lands for performing services as musicians in a temple. These lands were usufructuarily mortgaged by them to the first defendant and afterwards sold to the plaintiff. The first defendant resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the alienation in favour of the plaintiff of inam lands granted for services in connexion with the temple is invalid, as such alienation is opposed to public policy. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decree for possession. Against this decree the first defendant has preferred this second appeal and his learned vakil has again urged before us the plea that the alienation of the suit lands is invalid as being opposed to public policy.2....
Veetiparambil Ahammad Vs. Cheriath Chennamangalath Manakkal Karnavan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.578
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts are somewhat complicated and I think it is unnecessary to state them in great detail. Chiyamu was apparently the original owner of the property, but by Ex. B, dated the 15th January 1888, he acknowledged the plaintiff's title and obtained a kanom (mortgage) of the property. Whatever the rights originally of the parties were, that on the date of Ex. B the plaintiff became the owner of it there is no question. Chiyamu who was thus only a mortgagee executed a deed of sale Ex. 3 on the 8th February 1897 in favour of his son-in-law, Motippan. The sale was made on the footing that Chiyamu was absolutely entitled to the property. In October or November of the same year Chiyamu died and on the 23rd of June 1898, a partition, Ex. G, was effected among his heirs and the kanom right of Chiyamu over the property in question fell to the share of Aiyasabi, his daughter. The sale in favour of Mooppan was thus ignored in the deed of partition and it is equally importan...
Kandalam Krishnamacharylu and anr. Vs. Sathulari Vijayasarathi Minor b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.646
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. The suit was brought by them as reversioners to recover possession of certain properties alienated by the widow of last male owner. The last male owner was one Vijayasaradhi who died in 1867. He died while he was a minor. In the year of his death, the two alienations in question were effected on behalf of the widow by her father by Exs. I and II. Two points arose for decision in the case (1) whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Vijayasaradhy, and (2) whether the alienations are binding on the reversioners. The: District Munsif decided both the points in favour of the plaintiffs and gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found both the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.2. In second appeal both the findings of the Subordinate Judge are attacked before me. Taking the first point, namely, that of reversionership, the Subordinate Jud...
Periamurugappa Asari and anr. Vs. Manicka Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.213; (1925)49MLJ68
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The earlier portion dealing with a separate appeal being unnecessary for the purpose of this report has been omitted. There is a further question that arises in the other Second Appeal. O.S. No. 480 of 1913 had previously been filed by the carpenters, that is the present defendants, In that suit they claimed S. No. 32 on the ground that it was carpenter's inam and asked that the defendants in that suit should be directed to give up possession of it. There were four defendants and the 1st defendant Arunachallam Chetty was interested in plots 1 and 2. That suit was filed on 27th August, 1913. In execution of a decree against Arunachallam Chetty, these plots were sold and Thinnappa Chetty purchased them in Court-auction on the 10th September, 1914. Although the interest of Arunachallam,' Chetty passed to Thinnappa Chetty, the latter was not brought on the record of that suit and a decree was passed against the original defendants including Arunachallam Chetty on 16t...
R. Sabapathy Rao and ors. Vs. Sabapathy Press Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad489; (1925)48MLJ118
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal in the matter of an application for the winding up of the Sabapathy Press Co., Ltd., Bellary, under Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act. The learned Judge who heard the petition admitted evidence both documentary and oral adduced by the petitioners, but he did not call upon the respondents to adduce any evidence, as he thought that no case had been made out for winding up the company. He made some observations to the effect that everything that had taken place in the company's proceedings might not be quite regular and proper and that the minority had some real grievances as proved by the evidence adduced by the petitioners. But he held that there was no ground made out under Section 162, Clause (6) for a winding up order, the other clauses of this section being not applicable to the case before him. Clause 6 provides that a company may be wound up if the Court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the company ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »