Chennai Court December 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.
Mangamma Nayakuralu Vs. B.M. Ramadasappa Nayanimvary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ563
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal giving rise to a somewhat important point of limitation, and the dates are important. The appellant is the judgment-debtor, the wife of a certain Zamindar, against whom a suit was filed which resulted in a decree on the 10th April, 1911, subsequently confirmed on appeal to Lower Appellate Court on 28th March, 1912. The decree-holder applied on 15th August, 1912, for execution and attempted to attach the Zamindari properties. Thereupon the defendant raised funds and satisfied the decree on 14th July, 1913, and the execution petition was dismissed. An appeal from the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, dated 28th March, 1912, was preferred to the High Court which, by its decree, dated 23rd April, 1914, introduced a modification which has given rise to the question at issue as in the second appeal the High Court modified the decree by adding the words 'excluding the Zamindari.' After the High Court decree the 1st defendant filed I. A. No. 19 of 1916 for ref...
Mangamma Nayakuralu Vs. B.M. Ramdasappa Nayanimavary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad981
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal giving rise to a somewhat important point of limitation, and the dates are important. The appellant is the judgment-debtor, the wife of a certain Zamindar, against whom a suit was filed which resulted in a decree on the 10th April, 1911, subsequently confirmed on appeal to lower Appellate Court on 28th March, 1912. The decree-holder applied on 15th August, 1912, for execution and attempted to attach the Zamindari properties. Thereupon the defendant raised funds and satisfied the decree on 14th July, 1913, and the execution petition was dismissed. An appeal from the decree of the lower Appellate Court, dated 28th March, 1912, was preferred to the High Court which, by its decree, dated 23rd April, 1914, introduced a modification which has given rise to the question at issue as in the second appeal the High Court modified the decree by adding the words 'excluding the Zamindari.' After the High Court decree the 1st defendant filed I.A. No. 19 of 1916 for refu...
Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. Sithai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad911; (1925)49MLJ223
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam gave leave to the petitioner before us, one Ramakrishna Aiyar, to prosecute the respondent, a woman called Sithai Ammal under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for bringing against him a false charge of dacoity. The respondent thereupon went before Mr. Shield, who was the then District Magistrate of Tanjore, and he passed an order on the 11th September, 1923, the new Code of Criminal Procedure having come into force on the 1st of the month. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was nothing for him to do. He was asked to revoke the sanction and he said: 'I am not going to revoke the sanction, there is nothing in it.' It is admitted that the complaint had been filed before the 1st of September, 1923. In that view we have found from the records it was wrong--but that being his view and he presumably not being properly instructed on the facts--he supposed that no complaint had ...
Kothandarama Chettiar and anr. Vs. Annamalai Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad589; 87Ind.Cas.399; (1925)48MLJ406
Devadoss, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court by the District Munsif of Ariyalur is whether a Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court has power to attach immoveable property before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The Civil Procedure Code of 1908 is made applicable to all Courts of Civil Judicature unless the whole or portions of it are declared not applicable to any Court or the jurisdiction of any Court. Section 7 enacts that certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or to Courts exercising jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under that Act. Under Order 50 it is provided that certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, or to Courts exercising jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under that Act. Order 38 is not one of the orders mentio...
(Peyyett) Gopalam Garu Vs. Adusumilly Gopalakrishnayya Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1927Mad342
1. Neither the District Judge nor the Official Receiver has directed his attention to the real issue, in this matter, viz., whether the insolvent's chief means of livelihood is agriculture. It is not enough that he be an agriculturist, or that he be a trader. The point is which profession forms his chief means of livelihood.2. We set aside the District Judge's order and direct him to pass a fresh order in the light of the above remarks. Fresh evidence may be given. Costs up to date will abide the result....
Ernest William Adams Vs. Mrs. H.S.F. Gray and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad599; 90Ind.Cas.5; (1925)48MLJ707
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The task before us in this appeal is, as Lord Loughborough, the Lord Chancellor, observed in a case, to find out the meaning of words which the party using them did not understand. It relates to the construction of the will of one, Charles Gray. The matter came up before Mr. Justice Devadoss on the Original Side on a summons taken out by the Administrator-General of Madras for the purpose of construing the will and determining the rights thereunder of two claimants on behalf of each of whom it was urged that in the events that have happened he or she has become entitled to the part of the estate in question. There can be no doubt that the first principle to be borne in mind in regard to construction of wills is that, as far as possible, the real intentions of the testator as expressed in the will should be gathered and ascertained and given effect to. The so-called rules of construction to be found in such abundance, more especially in English decisions, are me...
Sagili Pedda Rami Reddi and ors. Vs. Narreddi Gangireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad807
Ramesam, J.1. The only question to be decided in this Second Appeal is one of succession to the properties of one C. Subbayya, who died in 1906 or 1907, leaving a widow Narakka, who died in October 1918. The plaintiff is a vendee (under a sale-deed, dated 14th October, 1919) from A. Venkatareddi and Balireddi, who are the mother's sister's sons of Subbayya. The District Munsif found that Subbayya has also left his mother's brother's son, but held, relying on Appandai Vathiar v. Bagupali Mudaliar [1910] 33 Mad. 439 that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. The Subordinate Judge confirmed his judgment. The defendants file this Second Appeal and contend that the mother's brother's son is entitled to priority, over the mother's sister's son, under the Hindu Law. They point out that the decision in Appandai Vathiar v. Bagubali Mudaliar [1910] 33 Mad. 439 has been dissented from in Bam Charan Lal v. Rahim Baksh [1916] 38 All. 416 and it must be regarded as shaken, if not overruled by the d...
Prdda Rami Reddi and 3 ors. Vs. Gangi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad722
Ramesam, J.1. The only question to be decided in this Second Appeal is one of succession to the properties of one C. Subbayya, who died in 1906 or 1907 leaving a widow Narakka who died in October 1918. The plaintiff is a vendee (under a sale deed, dated 14th October 1919) from A. Venkata Reddi and Bali Reddi, who are the mother's sister's sons of Subbayya. The District Munsif found that Subbayya has also left his mother's brother's sons but held, relying on Appandai Vathiyar v. Bagubali Mudaliyar I.L.R., (1910) Mad., 439 that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. The Subordinate Judge confirmed his judgment. The defendants file this Second Appeal and contend that the mother's brother's son is entitled to priority over the mother's sister's son under the Hindu Law. They point out that the decision in Appandai Vathiyar v. Bagubali Mudaliyar I.L.R., (1910) Mad., 439 has been dissented from in Ram Chadan Lal v. Rahim Baksh I.L.R., (1916) All., 416 and it must be regarded as shaken if not ...
Peyyety Gopalam Garu Vs. Adusumilly Gopalakrishnayya Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.416
1. Neither the District Judge nor the Official Receiver has directed his attention to the real issue, in this matter, viz., whether the insolvent's chief means of livelihood is agriculture. It is not enough that he be an agriculturist, or that he be a trader. The point is, which profession forms his chief means of livelihood.2. We set aside the District Judge's order and direct him to pass a fresh order in the light of the above remarks. Fresh evidence may be given. Costs up to date will abide the result....
In Re: Appasamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1122; (1925)49MLJ276
ORDERWallace, J. 1. The question raised in this revision petition is whether when a Criminal Court has taken cognizance of an offence for perjury, before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, on a sanction order to a private individual granted before the Code was amended, but has not completed the trial before the amended Code, which abolished all such sanctions, came into force, the trial can go on without fresh complaint under the amended provisions of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The point is one of first impression and is not very easy to decide. The petitioner is the accused in the perjury case. The First Court had refused the sanction, The Lower Appellate Court granted it. The petitioner moved the High Court to revoke that sanction after the amended Code came into force. The High Court held that, under the amended Code, such an application would not lie and dismissed it. The petitioner complains that the amendment of the Code should not have been used to deprive ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »