Chennai Court December 1924 Judgments
Garimella Annapurnayya Vs. Munsunuri Venkatasubramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ549
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff sued in this case for a declaration that he was the adopted son of the late G. Bhimayya and that the gift made by Bhimayya on 5th June, 1906, in favour of his wife Seethamma was invalid and for recovery of the property from the persons in possession.2. O.S. No. 39 of 1908 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada was a suit instituted by the natural father of this plaintiff as his next friend during his minority for the same reliefs as those asked for in the present case. It was compromised 'by the plaintiffs taking 2 acres and a house Appeal No. 420 of 1922. 19th December 1924. site and surrendering the rest of his claims. The Court gave leave to the next friend of the plaintiff to enter into this com-promise upon the certificate of his pleader that the terms were beneficial to the minor. Under that compromise the minor plaintiff gave up his claim to the rest of the properties of the late Bhimayya. The Subordinate Judge has held in the present suit o...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sastri and ors. Vs. Singaravelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad780; (1925)48MLJ470
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that plaintiffs' were in possession of the suit lands for more than 60 years before 1911, but objection is taken by appellants that there is no evidence to support this finding. The Subordinate Judge relies on oral statements of witnesses that plaintiffs' family were in possession for a very long period, but except for the statement of plaintiffs' witness No. 1, that his family was in possession for 150 years, a fact which is certainly not within his personal knowledge, there is no evidence which fixes the date of possession as early as 1851, and this is essential in order to prove adverse possession for 60 years. It is not sufficient to prove possession for a long period but, as pointed out by the Privy Council in Secretary of State for India v. Chellikani Rama Rao ILR (1916) M 617, possession for the whole period of 60 years must be affirmatively proved. In the present case there is no such evidence, but only evidence of long possession which the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Balaguruswami Naicken Vs. Guruswami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad703; 87Ind.Cas.989; (1925)48MLJ506
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the execution of the mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge held that the application for execution presented by the plaintiffs is not barred by limitation and the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiffs was passed on 14th September, 1916. An execution application was filed on 25th September, 1917. It was dismissed on 17th October, 1918. The present application is dated 9th March, 1923. The contention of the plaintiffs is that a certain sum of money in Court was paid out to them by order dated 31st March, 1920 and the cheque was actually issued on 1st April, 1920 and that their application is therefore within three years from the date of the order for payment out. On the other hand Mr. Subramania Aiyar for the appellant contends that the application for payment out of the sum of money in Court is not a step-in-aid of execution and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!(Sait) Siva Pratapa Bhattadu Vs. A.E.L. Mission and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad307
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates to the conflicting claims of the parties to money awarded, as compensation for land acquired. The appellants are the fourth mortgagees of the owner of the land and the respondents are the attaching creditors of the owner and have attached the land in execution of their decrees. The fourth claimant (the first respondent) attached the land in execution of his decree on 9th October 1920. The mortgage in favour of the appellants was executed on 12th November 1921, and the attachment by the seventh and eighth claimants (Respondents 2 and 3) was in October 1922. The award of the Collector is dated 31st July 1922, but that does not decide the respective rights of the several claimants, but referred the question to the District Court for decision. The compensation money was not received in the District Court until after October 1922, as distinctly stated by the District Judge, although an attempt has been made to show that he was wrong.2. The first question r...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Sanyasayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1224
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. In this case five persons were charged with the attempted murder of the Sub-Collector. The accused applied for bail and ultimately bail was granted, on the information then before him, by my learned brother in this Court. It was first argued that under the Code there was no power inherent in this Court to revise any such grant of bail. I have never been able to see the difficulty. Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought, before a Court, he may be released on bail.2. That is what happened here. By Sub-sectioon 5 of that section, the Court therein described 'may cause any person, who has been released under this section, to be arrested and may commit him to custody.' In the face of that, the argument that there is no power in this Court, whatever change of circumstances may be prov...
Tag this Judgment!Garimella Annapurnayya Vs. Munsunuri Venkatasubrahmanyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1285; 91Ind.Cas.742
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff sued in this case for a declaration that he was adopted son of the late G. Bhimmayya and that the gift made by Bhimmayya on 5th June 1906 in favour of his wife Seethamma was invalid and for recovery of the property from the persons in possession.2. Original Suit No. 39 of 1908 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada was a suit instituted by the natural father of this plaintiff as his next friend during his minority for the same reliefs as those asked for in the present case. It was compromised by the plaintiff's taking 2 acres, and a house site and surrendering the rest of his claims. The Court gave leave to the next friend of the plaintiff to enter into this compromise upon the certificate of his Pleader that the terms were beneficial to the minor. Under that compromise the minor plaintiff gave up his claim to the rest of the properties of the late Bhimmayya. The Subordinate Judge has held in the present suit on a preliminary issue t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sanyasayya Naidu and ors. Vs. the Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.665
Victor Murray Coutts-Trotter C.J.1. In this case five persons were charged with the attempted murder of the Sub-Collector. The accused applied for bail and ultimately bail was granted on the information then before him by my learned brother in this Court. It was first argued that under the Code there was no power inherent in this Court to revise any such grant of bail. I have never been able to see the difficulty. Section 497(1) of the Cr. P.C. runs as follows:When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a Police Station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he maybe released on bail.2. That is what happened here. By Sub-section (5) of that section the Courts therein described 'may cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody.' In the face of that, the argument that there is no power in this Court, whatever change of circumstances may be proved before ...
Tag this Judgment!Sait Siva Pratapa Bhattadu and anr. Vs. A.E.L. Mission Rajamundry and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.496
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates to the conflicting claims of the parties to money awarded as compensation for land acquired. The appellants are the fourth mortgagees of the owner of the land and the respondents are the attaching creditors of the owner and have attached the land in execution of their decrees. The fourth claimant (the first respondent) attached the land in execution 'of his decree on 9th October 1920. The mortgage in favour of the appellants was executed on 12th November 192l and the attachment by the seventh and eighth claimants (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) was in October 1922. The award of the Collector is dated 31st July 1922, but that does not decide the respective rights of the several claimants, but referred the question to the District Court for decision. The compensation money was not received in the District Court until after October 1922 as distinctly stated by the District Judge, although an attempt has been made to show that he was wrong. The first question ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sonaimuthu Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.916; (1925)48MLJ502
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the accused was properly convicted of the offence of going armed within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act (Act XI of 1878). It would appear that he has been discharged under Clause (f) of the same section of being in possession of arms in contravention of the provisions of Section 14 or 15. I should have thought that the offence of going armed with fire-arm was considerably more narrow than the offence of being in possession merely of fire-arms. The expression ' going armed ' clearly indicates two things, namely, firstly of an intention to use it as a fire-arm and secondly, the possibility of using it. In this case there was only one empty cartridge in the weapon and no cartridges at all have been found on the person of the accused. This alone would show that, in the circumstances under which he was found to be in possession of the fire-arm, it would not be possible for him to use the weapon...
Tag this Judgment!Kruthiventi Perraju Garu Vs. Sri Nallapuraju Mirja Sitaramachandraraju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad897; 90Ind.Cas.458; (1925)48MLJ584
Odgers, J.1. This is a petition by the plaintiff for an order directing the Additional District Judge of the Agency Division, Waltair, to review his judgment and decree in A.S. No. 2 of 1923, dated 30th April 1923. The suit came to the Additional District Judge on appeal from the Judicial Assistant Commissioner of the Agency Division, Vizagapatam, in a mortgage suit on a bond dated 9th May, 1901, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one K. Perrazu, said to be the adoptive father of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the undivided father of the defendants 2, to 6 and the manager of the joint family. No less than 14 issues were originally framed in the case and there is in fact a petition by the defendants 2 to 6 against the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on points of adoption, limitation and the binding nature of the mortgage. These points were all given up before us, and the petition is confined to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge in paragraph 8...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »