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.
Veerappa Goundan Through His Grandfather and Next Friend Alagia Gounda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad886; (1925)48MLJ512
Phillips, J.1. In this case a preliminary decree for partition and for mesne profits was passed in favour of the plaintiff, and this was confirmed in appeal, the original decree being dated nth December, 1919, and the appellate decree 21st February, 1922. Meanwhile the final decree had been passed by the Trial Court on 15th September, 1920; and in this final decree the partition was decreed in accordance with a memorandum put in by the parties, and no relief was given in respect of the mesne profits. Seven or eight months after the passing of the appellate decree confirming the preliminary decree, an application was made to the first Court to amend the final decree either by way of amendment or by way of review on the ground that the final decree had omitted to give relief which had been allowed in the preliminary decree. That petition was dismissed and no appeal has been preferred against it, nor any application to review that order; subsequently an application was. put in under Secti...
Akki Guru Basappa and anr. Vs. Vuluvathi Setra Santhappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad710; 83Ind.Cas.133; (1925)48MLJ496
1. The only point raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is 'Is a sale deed executed before but registered after the filing of a suit affected by the doctrine of Us pendens?'2. The contention of Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant is that on the date of the filing of the plaint, the property had not passed to the plaintiff inasmuch as the sale deed was not registered and that the registration of the sale deed, subsequent to the filing of the plaint, amounted to a transfer of the property in suit and therefore Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case. In the case of a conveyance or a document creating title to immoveable property registration is necessary to give validity to such document but the question is whether a document creates title from the date of its execution ox whether it creates title only from the date of its registration. Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act makes it clear that ' a registered document shall operate from the time from which it wo...
In Re: Yerlagadda Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad856; (1925)48MLJ605
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted of having committed offences under Section 188 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55 (b) of the Abkari Act.2. The facts found were that he was discovered by a Police Officer on 20th March, 1924 selling arrack in his shop during a festival day at Mangalagiri at 6-10 P. M., 7-30 P. M and 10-30 P. M., the former sales being in contravention of an order promulgated by the District Collector, and the latter sale being in contravention of the terms of his license. The conviction under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, was for the former sales and that under Section 55 (b) of the Abkari Act for the latter.3. It is contended for the petitioner first that Section 188, Indian Penal Code, will not apply to such a case : and we think this is so. There is here no question or proof of causing or tending to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to any one, and it does not follow, as the Lower Courts seem to think, as a matter of course, that selling drin...
Chennapragada Narayanamurthy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad963; 90Ind.Cas.555; (1925)48MLJ682
Ramesam, J.1. The order of the Sub-Collector, Ex. E-1, was passed on the appeal of Melam Surayya and two others. The written statement of the defendant which was carelessly drafted produces the impression that the order was passed on revision. The appeal of Surayya and others was filed on 14th November, 1916. and, though it was more than 30 days from the date of the Tahsildar's order (10th October, 1916), the appellants stated that they heard of the order on 16th October, 1916, and so claimed that their appeal was within time. Mr. Lancashire called for a report on 18th April, 1917. 1 think it must be taken that he excused the delay, or, otherwise, he would not have called for a report and might have rejected the appeals as out of time. The Subordinate judge is not clear as to whether the order of the Sub-Collector was passed on appeal or on revision. I have now sent for all the originals of Exs. C, D, E, etc., and am satisfied that the order was on appeal. The second appeal fails so fa...
Gopinatha Chowdhari and anr. Vs. Kristno Chowdhari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad881; 87Ind.Cas.669
1. This is an appeal against the order of remand, by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampore in a suit brought by the respondent plaintiff, for the recovery of possession of the suit land, from the 1st defendant, who is now in possession. The land admittedly belongs to one Sadhuvani. The plaintiff claims from her, under the deed, Ex. A of 1909, the constitution of which is one of the questions argued before us. The 1st defendant claims by a lease, Ex. II, dated 1917, from the same lady, Sadhuvani. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff had no right to possession at all, under Ex. A, and without further considering the case, dismissed his suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has sent the case, down for trial on the merits. He is apparently of opinion that the document is an anamolous mortgage and that its terms are ambiguous and that further extraneous evidence should be adduced to explain its terms. The respondent before us has not attempted to support this view that there...
In Re: Appaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.388
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 Cr.P.C. 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 a fresh complaint, under the amended provisions of Section 476, Cr.P.C. 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 him of his opportunity of moving...
Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Venkatarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.745
1. Those two civil revision petitions are presented against the order of the District Munsif of Mayavaram confirming an award in the matters in dispute in O.S. No. 505 of 1919 on his file, dismissing petitioners objections and granting the respondents a decree in accordance therewith. The petitioners challenge the order on various grounds, the chief contention being that the arbitrators decided two matters beyond the scope of the reference and, therefore, beyond their jurisdiction, and, therefore, the lower Court, in accepting their decision on these points and incorporating it in its decree, has exceeded its jurisdiction. The arbitration was in the matter of the dissolution of partnership between the six plaintiffs in the suit and the defendants, who were jointly working a mill concern. The reference to arbitration, Ex. A, gave the arbitrators authority, inter alia, to sell the property, moveable and immoveable, by public auction to the highest bidder, whether he be a partner or a str...
In Re: Akki Guru Basappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.568
1. The only point raised in this Letters Patent appeal is 'Is a sale-deed executed before but registered after the filing of a suit affected by the doctrine of lis pendens'?2. The contention of Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant is that on the date of the filing of the plaint, the property had not passed to the plaintiff inasmuch as the sale-deed was not registered and that the registration of the sale-deed, subsequent to the filing of the plaint, amounted to a transfer of the property in suit and, therefore, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case. In the case of a conveyance or a document creating title to immoveable property, registration is necessary to give validity to 'such document but the question is whether a document creates title from the date of its execution or whether it creates title only from the date of its registration. Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act makes it clear that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it...
Sutrame Govinda Rao Vs. Anugodu Matada Rudrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad830; 90Ind.Cas.465; (1925)49MLJ14
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, whether Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, bars the trial of the present suit. The facts may be shortly stated. The plaintiff is a trader in the Madras Presidency and the defendant is his agent residing in the Presidency of Bombay. I shall, in my judgment, refer to the plaintiff as principal and to the defendant as agent. The duties of the agent were to purchase goods for the principal, to advance, if necessary, moneys for that purpose, to sell the goods so purchased or to despatch them to other constituents named by the principal. The agent filed O.S. No. 356 of 1919 on the file of the Havari Sub-Court claiming the balance of the amount alleged to be due to him on account of the advance made by him for purchase of goods. In the plaint he gave credit for various sums including an item which represents the sale proceeds of 82 bags of chillies belonging to the principal. It is this item which has been the subject of controversy in this...
Krishnaswami thevan and ors. Vs. Pulukaruppa thevan by His Mother and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ354
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit brought by a minor represented by his mother as next friend for partition of family property. He impugned several alienations made by his father, the 1st defendant, as not binding on his interest; and the Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition. The 7th defendant, and the defendants 4, 5 and 6, who are the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant, appeal. The 7th defendant is an alienee of the first item and the others are alienees of items 4, 7 and 28. Their vakil, without directly attacking the findings of the Subordinate Judge that the alienations of these items are not supported by consideration and are not binding on the plaintiff, has argued that as the 1st defendant admitted having received consideration, these alienations are binding at least on his share, and that they may in the course of partition be allotted to his share, and that if this is done the possession of these appellants will not be disturbed. The items in dispute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »