Chennai Court March 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.
Kajulurisami and anr. Vs. Sooryanarayan Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad126
Jackson, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908 and Section 107, Government of India Act.2. Petitioner applied under Order 9, Rule 9 to restore his petition for setting aside an execution sale which had been previously dismissed for default. The lower Court has dismissed the application on the ground that such an application does not lie against orders in execution proceedings following Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh v. Tilakdhari Lal [1919] 4 Pat. L.J. 135. Hence this petition.3. The Patna Bench has ruled in terms that Order 9, Rule 9 does not apply, and the question is whether this ruling should be followed with special reference to Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Ghettiar (1914) 37 Mad. 462. the Madras ruling to the contrary. In the Madras ruling, at p. 475, the following passage occurs:It is contended that Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to ex parte orders passed in execution, but only to ex-parte decrees in suits. We think that tha...
Venkatasubba Chettiar Vs. Sesha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad700
1. This is a petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908 and Section 107 of the Government of India Act.2. Petitioner and respondent were the only two candidates at the election held on 22nd September 1922 for the appointment of a councilor to represent the 12th Ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality. The petitioner was declared duly elected and respondent filed a petition before the District Judge of Trichinopoly under the rules framed in accordance with Section 303(2)(b), Madras Act V of 1920. While the inquiry into this petition was pending, the respondent applied in I.A. No. 625 of 1922 purporting to be under Sections 94, 141 and 151 and Order XXXIX, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the present petitioner be restrained by a temporary injunction from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. In his order on this application, dated 30th October .1922, the District Judge restrained the petitioner by an interim injunction from taking his se...
Narayanan Chetty and ors. Vs. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.658
Ramesam, J.1. Appeal No. 25 of 1917. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. The Defendants appeal.2. Narayana Chetti, father of 4th defendant and his younger brother, Muthiah Chetti father of Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were carrying on business at Rangoon under the style of M.P.M. Rm. In the course of business one Veerappa Chettiar of the P.R.M. Firm became indebted to the firm to the extent of Re. 3,000, but was unable to pay the debt. The 2nd Plaintiff advised the agent (Alagappa) of the Defendants through P.W. 6 of the connected suit O.S. No. 90 of 1914 (examined on commission at Rangoon) to buy the suit site and that he (the 2nd Plaintiff) would 'take it off him afterwards,' so that Defendants' firm who are not in need of the site need not lose interest (Vide Ex. G 2). The Defendants' father purchased the site for Rs. 5,000 the consideration consisting partly of cash and partly of the debt due by Veerap...
Venkatasubbiah Chettiar Vs. Sesha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.664
Jackson, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908, and Section 107, Government of India Act.2. Petitioner and respondent were the only two candidates at the election held on 22nd September, 1922 for the appointment of a Councillor to represent the 12th Ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality. The petitioner was declared duly elected, and respondent filed a petition before the District Judge of Trichinopoly under the rules framed in accordance with Section 303(2)(b), Madras Act V of 1920. While the inquiry into this petition was pending the respondent applied in I.A No. 625 of 1922 purporting to be under Sections 94, 141, 151 and Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code that the present petitioner be restrained by a temporary injunction from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. In his order on this application dated 30th October 1922, the District Judge restrained the petitioner by interim injunction from taking his seat in t...
In Re: Gottumukkula Narayana Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.657
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Head Constable entered the house in question and found in a room three of the articles alleged to have been stolen. Before the constable could remove them, the accused caused the door of the room to be shut. The accused also threatened to kill the constable if he removed the articles. In these circumstances, the question to be decided is whether any offence has been committed under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. In other words, do the acts proved constitute obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions? I have not the slightest doubt that the offence had been committed. The learned Vakil for the accused relies upon Queen-Empress v. Somanna 15 M.P 221 : 2 M.L.J. 120 : 1 Wair 133 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 505 and argues that the closing of the door does not amount to an obstruction. I do not think this case is an authority for this proposition. Whether there is an obstruction is a question of fact. What was held in that case was that...
Gottumukkula Narayana Raju and anr. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad760
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Head Constable entered the house in question and found in a room three of the Articles alleged to have been stolen. Before the constable could remove them the accused caused the door of the room to be shut. The accused also threatened to kill the constable if he removed the articles. In these circumstances, the question to be decided is whether any offence has been committed under Section 186, I.P.C. In other words do the acts proved constitute obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions? I have not the slightest doubt that the offence has been committed. The learned vakil for the accused relies upon Queen Empress v. Somanna [1891] 15 Mad. 221 and argues that the closing of the door does not amount to an obstruction. I do not think this case is an authority for this proposition. Whether there is an obstruction is a question of fact. What was held in that case was that failure to open a door to let a public servant in was not ...
Kuppakkal Vs. Mathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad834
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. One Rangaswami Chetty sold be the 1st defendant under Exhibit I, dated 26bh June, 1917, a strip of land about 102 feet long and 21 feet wide having a frontage on a public road out of a large block of building vacant site of which he was the owner. The portion purchased by the 1st defendant I shall call site No. A. The laud exclusive of site No. A may, for the purposes of this appeal, be regarded as consisting of two parts: (1) The portion 30uth of and contiguous to what was sold to the 1st defendant opening also on the public road (this I shall call site No. B), and (2) the bulk of the property at the back of the site No. A and the site No. B to which access from the road was over the said site No. B. (this I shall call site No. C).2. Three days subsequent to the sale of she No. A, Rangaswami CheUy sold the remainder of the block, site3 Nos. B and C, to certain persons from whom the present plaintiffs derive title. On the site No. C the plaintiffs constructed a g...
Meyappa Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad58; 83Ind.Cas.91; (1924)47MLJ397
1. As the Full Bench has now decided that the attachment by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 153 (124) of 1914 was not subsisting when the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition applied to execute his decree and enforce his security, the application for rateable distribution after the dismissal of E.P. No. 182 of 1916, was not regular and the lower Court's order cannot be supported. We allow this Civil Re-vision Petition with costs in this Court including costs before the Full Bench.2. An objection was taken to the validity of the Full Bench judgment on the ground that it was pronounced at a time when Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter was absent on deputation in connection with the enquiry of the Bar Committee. As that learned Judge did not resign his appointment, he did not cease to be a Judge of this Court during his temporary absence on other service, and the cases quoted in Mahomed Akil v. Asad-un-nisa Bibee and Mutty Lal Sen Gywal v. Deshkar Roy (1867) 9 WR 1 and Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimu...
S.B. Varadarajulu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad183
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The word 'punishment' in Section 3 of the Whipping Act, has been interpreted as the 'total of punishments awardable' by the learned Judges who decided Queen-Empress v. Dagadu (1892) 16 Bom. 357 In lieu of punishing the offender by sentencing him to imprisonment and imposing on him a fine, the Court may punish him with whipping. The portion of the sentence, imposing the fine, must, therefore, be set aside. I accordingly do so and direct that the fine be refunded....
Kothandaramaswami Naidu Vs. Pappammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad218
Odgers, J.1. One T.M. Narayanaswami Naidu died in 1889 or thereabouts leaving a Will whereby he constituted a certain religious trust called Ramanujamatam and appointed three trustees to manage it. These trustees died and the appellant before us applied for and obtained on 26th September, 1894, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the estate of Narayanaswami Naidu. From 1894, the appellant was in management of the trust and in 1912 by O.S. 3 of that year appellant's brother Lakahmiah sued appellant to produce the accounts of the trust and for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to him. This suit was compromised on 18th December, 1912 and a decree passed in pursuance thereof. It provided that plaintiff Lakshmiah should manage the trust properties for 2 years from 1st January, 1913, and defendant for the next two years.They shall thus continue to manage the same alternatively in turns of 2 years each.2. Lakshmiah died on 17th March, 1917, without apparently ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »