Chennai Court February 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.
Parvati Ammal Vs. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad80; (1924)47MLJ316
Wallace, J.1. One Saminatha Pillai was the head of a joint Hindu family of which defendants 2, 3 and the husband of the fifth defendant were members. He mortgaged some of the property, item (I) in the plaint, in 1902 to one Sella-thachi, and in 1904 assigned his half share in the plaint items to the first defendant, who is the wife of the second defendant. The son of Sellathachi sued on the mortgage, got a decree and brought the property to sale in execution. The sale was held. but before confirmation, the first defendant raised money from the plaintiff on a hypothecation bond, the plaintiff undertaking to pay up the sale amount and release the property. The plaintiff did so and the decree was thereby satisfied. In a partition suit by the third defendant in 1909, O.S. No. 41 of 1909 on the file of the Kumbakonam Subordinate Court, to which the first defendant, but not the plaintiff, was a party, that Court held that the assignment by Saminatha Pillai to the first defendant was a sham. ...
A. Sethurama Mudaliar Vs. M.P. Mangala Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad764; (1924)46MLJ494
1. In this petition the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul has found that the ballot papers at a Municipal election held in Palani Municipality are invalid under Rule 17 (1) of the Election Rules. The polling officer, when giving out the ballot papers to the voters, put not only the serial number upon the back of them but also the voters' own number on electoral roll. Consequently, anyone seeing this number on a voting paper could, by a reference to the electoral roll which is available to everybody, identify the particular voter; and it has been held in Woodward v. Sarsons 10 C.P.D. 733 in an almost identical case, that the ballot papers were invalid; but in that case the electoral numbers were placed, not upon the back, but upon the face of the ballot paper. It is now argued that this makes a great deal of difference, because the back and the front of the paper cannot be seen at the same time. In Madras there is no rule like the English rule enjoining on the Returning Officer the necessit...
M. Veeresalingam and ors. Vs. P. Kondayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad430
Wallace, J.1. The only point raised before me is whether the mortgage is void on the ground that its registration was effected by a fraud on the registering officer, inasmuch as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. There is no allegation that the mortgagee was aware of the fraud and shared in it. In these circumstances I must accept the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Venkata Lakshmikantaraju Garu v. Pada Venkata Jaganadha Raju Garu A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 281 following Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury v. Haridasi Bibi A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 67 Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan chowdhury A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 8 and Pahlad Lal v. Laraiti (1918) 41 All. 22 that where no collusion by the mortgagee to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in respect of the registration of the document has bean made out, the registration is not invalid, at least so far as the interests of the mortgagee are concerned. The decree of the lower Appellate Court i...
Mamillapalli Veeresalingham and ors. Vs. Ponnukollu Kondayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.869
Wallace, J.1. The only point raised before me is whether the mortgage is void on the ground that its registration was effected by a fraud on the registering officer, in as much as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. There is no allegation that the mortgage was aware of the fraud and shared in it. In these circumstances I must accept the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Venkata Lakshmikantaraju Garu v. Pada Venkata Jagannadha Baju Garu : (1924)46MLJ12 following Harendra Lal Boy Ghowdury v. Baridasi Bibi 23 Ind. Cas. 637 : 41 C.p 972 : 27 M.L.J. 80 : (1914) M.W.N. 462 : 16 M.L.T. 6 : 18 C.W.N. 817 : 19 C.L.J. 484 : 16 Bom. L.R. 400 : 12 A.L.J. 774 L.W. 1050 : 41 I.A. 110 Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan Ghowdhury 63 Ind. Cas. 770 : 48 C.P 509 : 48 I.A. 127 and Pahlad Lal v. Laraiti 48 Ind. Cas. 200 : 41 A.P 22 : 16 A.L.J. 871 that where no collusion by the mortgage to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in respe...
In Re: Jambulinga Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1003; (1924)47MLJ437
ORDER1. In this case the six accused who are the petitioners before me, have been convicted by the Third Class Magistrate of Ginjee of criminal trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. The convictions and the sentences were upheld by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore.2. The land on which the criminal trespass is said to have been committed was a vacant piece of land. It originally be-longed to one Muthia Chetti. This is admitted on both sides. The complainant's father purchased it from Muthia Chetti first; but he did not get a registered sale deed; he, however, kept possession of the property; and under the Transfer of Property Act, the property being worth only Rs. 25, that is, less than Rs. 100, title in it would certainly pass to him. But unfortunately for him Muthia Chetti again sold the land to one Dharma Chetti under a registered sale deed. It is clear law that the subsequent registered sale deed will prevail against the earlier unregistered sale deed, even t...
Villuri Jagannadham Naidu Vs. Ch. Rama Rao, Sanitary Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad186; (1924)47MLJ917
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 362 and 313 of the District Municipalities Act, V of 1920 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 with two weeks' simple imprisonment in default. The facts found on which he has been convicted are that he built a buttress wall to his compound wall, which projected on to the municipal street adjoining it. This was no doubt an encroachment. Taking the definition of the word ' street ' in Section 3, Clause (21), encroachment upon the land by the side of a street, even though it is uncovered by any pavement or other structure, would be an encroachment on the street. Section 180 would certainly apply to this case. But the lower Courts, though the accused was first charged under Section 180, have altered the charge, because of the difficulty of the limitation of three months, within which the prosecution has to be started, for an offence under Section 180 to one under Section 362 of the District Municipalities A...
Poochammal Alias Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Soundrammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.554
Charles Gordon Spencer, Offg., C.J.1. This is a suit by a reversioner to obtain a declaration that the Court sale in, favour of the 2nd defendant of certain properties which belonged to the reversioner's father and the subsequent sale by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant are not for purposes binding on the estate and are not valid after the death of the 1st defendant her step-mother who is alleged in the plaint to have got a suit instituted by 2nd defendant, her maternal uncle, who is also husband of her sister. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the issue as to limitation without trying the other issue and the District Judge confirmed his decree. The ground given by the District Judge for holding that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 125 is that the decree and sale sought to be declared invalid were preceded in 1905 by a mortgage and that the sale in execution cannot be taken as the starting point for limitation when there is a previous mortgage upon which th...
Velluri Jagannadh Naidu Vs. Ch. Rama Rao, Sanitary Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.646
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 362 and 313 of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 with two weeks' simple imprisonment in default. The facts found on which he has been convicted are that he built a buttress wall, to his compound wall, which projected on to the Municipal street adjoining it. This was, no doubt, an encroachment. Taking the definition of the word 'street' in Section 3, Clause (21), encroachment upon the land by the side of a street, even though it is uncovered by any pavement or other structure would be an encroachment on the street. Section 180 would certainly apply to this case. But the lower Courts, though the accused was first charged under Section 180, have altered the charge because of the difficulty of the limitation of three months within which the prosecution has to be started for an offence under Section 180, to one under Section 362 of the District Municipalities Act. ...
Jambulinga Chetty and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad862
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the six accused who are the petitioners before me, have been convicted by the Third Glass Magistrate of Ginjee of criminal trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. The convictions and the sentences were upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore.2. The land on which the criminal trespass is said to have been committed was a vacant piece of land. It originally belonged to one Muthia Chetti. This is admitted on both sides. The complainant's father purchased it from Muthia Chetti first, bat he did not get a registered sale-deed; he however, kept possession of the property and under the Transfer of Property Act, the property being worth only Rs. 25 that is less than Ra. 100, title in it would certainly pass to him. But unfortunately for him Muthia Chetti again sold the land to one Dharma Chetti under a registered sale-deed. It is clear law that the subsequent registered sale-deed will prevail against the earlier unregistered sale deed,...
In Re: Periaswami Muthiryan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad888
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Beach Court has no doubt power in law, to stay the trial of the criminal case and I do not understand why it doubts that. If the accused's defence is that they were in possession on the date of the criminal trespass, then the result of the civil case will have no bearing on the criminal trial and no stay of the latter will be called for. But if accused's defence is that they were not in possession but went, in pursuance of their title for possession, to take possession, then the decision of the Civil Court on title will have some bearing on the case and the criminal trial had better be stayed. The Bench will proceed with the case up to the stage of accused putting in their defence and then be guided on the lines indictated above, as to the propriety of staying further trial till the disposal of the civil case....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›