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.
Krishnamurthi Aiyar (Minor) by K. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Krishnamurthi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.882; (1925)49MLJ252
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are legatees under the will of one Ramakrishna Aiyar who died on 2nd April, 1911. The suit is brought to recover possession of properties bequeathed to the plaintiffs under the said will. The deceased owned about 135 acres of land, of which he bequeathed 17 acres 90 cents to be taken by the plaintiffs, who were his wife's relations, immediately on his death. They were also to get 19 acres 30 cents upon the death of his widow Sivagami Ammal to whom the will allotted 45 acres 65 cents. On the same date (23rd March, 1910) that the will was executed, Ramakrishna Aiyar adopted the 3rd defendant and under the will he bequeathed 26 acres 35 cents to the adopted son. He also gave 12 acres and odd to charity, and 9 acres 33 cents to his two nieces, 6 acres 34 cents to his nephew and grand-nephew and 37 acres to a gnati named Sami Aiyar. Out of the 45 acres given to his wife, the adopted son was to get 26 acres 35 cents upon the widow's death. After ...
Namineni Chengamma Naidu and anr. Vs. N. Gangulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad235
Spencer, O.C.J.1. The plaintiff brought O.S. No. 48 of 1917 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot to recover Rs. 3,162 as money advanced to a partnership together with interest and profit thereon. The first Court gave him a decree for Rs. 2,845 together with interest on Rs 1,745 against the four defendants. Of these four defendants, defendants 1 and 2 appealed. The third defendant died after the joint appeal by him and the other two defendants had been filed. His legal representative, who was the 4th defendant, did not appeal, and he was not; made a party to the appeal of defendants 1 and 2. The District Judge held that the appeal abated because the legal representative of the deceased was not brought on the record within the time allowed by law. In doing so, he seems to have over-looked Order 41, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, which provides that, where there are more than one defendant in a suit and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the defen...
Krishnamurthy Aiyar Vs. Krishnamurthy Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad932
Spencer Offg.C.J.1. The plaintiffs are legatees under the will of one Ramakrishna Aiyar who died on 2nd April,, 1911. The suit is brought to recover possession of properties bequeathed to the plaintiffs under the said will. The deceased owned about 135 acres of land, of which he bequeathed 17 acres 90 cents to be taken by the plaintiffs who were his wife's relations, immediately on his death. They were also to get 19 acres 30 cents upon the death of his widow. Sivagami Ammal to whom the will allotted 45 acres 65 cents. On the same date (23rd March, 1910) that the will waa executed, Ramakrishna Aiyar adopted the 3rd defendant and under the will he bequeathed 26 acres 3rd cents to the adopted son. He also gave 12 acres and odd to charity, and 9 acres 33 cents to his two nieces, 6 acres 34 cents to his nephew and grand-nephew and 37 acres to a gnati named Sami Aiyar. Out of the 45 acres given to his wife, the adopted son was to get 26 acres 35 cents upon the widow's death. After the beque...
Chidambaragurukkal Alias Devendrasaiva Puranthara Pandithar Vs. Sivagn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.619
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by an Inamdar against his tenant.2. The first question to be decided is whether the grant to predecessor of the plaintiff was of the land, or the grantee not owning the Kudivaram of the land revenue only. Section 3(d) of the Estates Land Act does not, in terms, apply because the suit concerns not a village but only a small plot of land. The point has, however, to be decided with reference to considerations similar to those that would apply if the case fell within that section. If the grant were forthcoming it would be the most valuable evidence but, unfortunately, the grant is not before the Court, although it is agreed that the land was granted come centuries ago during the period of the Madura Kings. The learned Subordinate Judge has, on a consideration of the materials before him, come to the conclusion that the Inamdars were entitled only to the melwaram. I agree with him. Proceedings connected with the Inam enquiry are relied...
Mahabab Alli Khan Vs. the President, Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.325
ORDER1. Accused as lessee of the Johorapuram meat market tinder the Taluk Board of Kurnool, has been sentenced to pay that body Rs. 371 together with interest and costs being the amount due on his lease for May and June 1923. He files, this criminal revision petition, on the ground that money due under a contract cannot be collected under the provisions of Section 221 of the Madras Act XIV of 1920.2. It has long been recognised law that money due under a contract cannot be summarily recovered by a Municipality in a Magistrate's Court under the old Madras District Municipalities Act IV of 1884, Section 269 vide Abdul Azeez Sahib v. Cuddapah Municipality 26 M. 475. The point for determination is whether the wording of Section 221 of the Madras Act XIV of 1920, has extended the power of the local body. Section 269 of Act IV of 1884 was 'all rents, fees, tolls and other payments due to the Municipal Council under the provisions of this Act.' Section 221 of Act XIV of 1920 runs 'any fee, to...
Chidambara Gurukkal Vs. Sivagnanasundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad833
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by an Inamdar against his tenant.2. The first question to be decided id whether the grant to the predecessor of the plaintiff was of the land, or, the grantee not owning the Kudivaram, of the land revenue only. Section 3(d) of the Estates Land Act does not in terms apply because the suit concerns not a village but only a small plot of land. The point bad however to be decided with reference to considerations similar to those that would apply if the ease fell within that section. If the grant were forthcoming it would h$ the most valuable evidence but unfortunately the grant is not before the Court, although it is agreed that the land was granted some centuries ago during the period of the Madura Kings. The learned Subordinate Judge has on a consideration of the materials before him come to the conclusion that the Inamdars were entitled only to the Melvaram. I agree with him. Proceedings connected with the Inam enquiry are relied u...
Mahabab Alli Khan Vs. President, Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad898(1)
ORDER1. Accused as lessee of the Johorapuram meat; market under the Taluk Board of Kurnool, has been sentenced to pay that body RP. 371 together with interest and costs being the amount due on bi3 lease for May and June, 1923. He files this Criminal Revision Petition on the ground that money due under a contract cannot be collected under the provisions of Section 221, of Madras Act XIV of 1920. It has long been recognised law that money due under a contract cannot be summarily recovered by a Municipality in a Magistrate's Court under the old Madras District Municipalities Act IV of 1884, Section 269 vide Abdul Azeez Sahib v. Cuddppah Municipality (1903) 26 Mad. 475. The point for determination is whether the wording of Section 221 of Madras Act XIV of 1920, has extended the power of the local body. Section 269 of Act IV of 1884 was 'all rents, fees, tolls and other payments due to the Municipal Council under the provisions of this Act.' Section 221 of Act XIV of 1920 runs 'any fee, tol...
Ayyaswami Iyer and ors. Vs. Annan Thirumala Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad670; 83Ind.Cas.999; (1924)47MLJ8
ORDERWallace, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of defamation. It was found and petitioners did not deny, that they, as executive members of the Shevapet Sowrashtra Sabha, communicated to other local Sabhas reports of the nature of Ex. A, filed in this case, in which it is stated that a complaint had been received that one K. Narasimha Iyer said that Anan Thirumalai Iyer P.W. 1, had been born to Putta Venkata Subbayya, and that he, while an infant, was rolled up in a mat and thrown; that the sabha met accused and under their orders a servant was sent to bring P.W. 1, and on his report that P.W. 1 could not come, they considered the matter and decided that P.W. 1 should be removed from the community, and that that had accordingly been done.2. The lower Courts have found that this report was defamatory of P.W. 1 and was not privileged. It is argued in revision that the lower appellate Court has based its confirming Judgment on mistakes of fact and that both Courts had fundamentall...
Chathoth Parkum Kareth Kombi Kunhammad Kutty Vs. Parambath Chathankand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.886; (1924)47MLJ679
Wallace, J.1. The decision in this appeal turns on the interpretation to be put upon Ex. B, a gift deed executed by one Parapravan Bavotti Haji in favour of his daughter. The donor was a Mahomedan of North Malabar admittedly following the Marumakkatayam Law prevalent in those parts and he was the sole survivor and senior member of his tarwad.2. Ex. B recites that he gifts the property ' to you ' (in the singular) and then goes on to say that ' in future except for you and your offspring (santanam) there is no claim, concern or right of entry for me over this paramba.... you and your santanams should hold the said paramba in possession and enjoy the same as your jenmom. ' Both the lower Courts have held that the form and circumstances of the gift necessarily lead to the inference that the gift was not for the donee's exclusive benefit but for her children also, and that the property gifted is therefore putravakasam property belonging to the donee's tavazhi.3. The first defendant in this...
In Re: Appasami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ447
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the three petitioners before me have been convicted under Section 225-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various fines by the Sub-Magistrate of Den-Kanikota, and their conviction has been confirmed by the joint Magistrate of Hosur.2. The prosecution case is that certain constables were sent to the village of Ullugurukki on the 29th May 1922 and P. W. 1, a constable, arrested the first accused and took him by his hand. Then, it is said, the accused asked him why he arrested him and that the constable told him that he was arresting him under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused seems to have resisted this arrest on the ground that he was not liable to be arrested under Section 54 Cr. P. Code. The constable who arrested him has no warrant for this arrest. Accused 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first accused, also seem to have taken part in resisting the arrest. All the same, all the three accused were arrested by the constables...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »