Chennai Court April 1924 Judgments
Somu Pillai Vs. Krishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad899; (1924)47MLJ481
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions judge of South Arcot in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19 of 1923. The complainant, Somu Pillai, brought a case of theft of bulls against the accused in the Court of the Second Class Magistrate of Chidambaram Taluq. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the accused and directed the bulls to be handed over to the complainant. The accused appealed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chidambaram who acquitted the accused and declined to interfere with the order of the Sub-Magistrate regarding the bulls. Against this order of the Deputy Magistrate an appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge of South Arcot Division, who set aside the order of the Divisional Magistrate and directed the bulls to be handed over to the accused. It is urged before me that the Sessions Judge had no power under Section 520 to vary the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Section 520 is in these terms:--'Any Court of appeal, confirmatio...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Reddiar Vs. Lakshmana Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ475
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit on a negotiable promissory-note (dated 24th December, 1915) payable on demand by the endorsee of the note against the maker (1st defendant) and the endorser (2nd defendant). The Subordinate Judge gave a decree against both the defendants.2. The 2nd defendant filed this petition. In his written statement, he raised the question of limitation. The second point for determination stated by the Subordinate Judge is whether the 2nd defendant is liable. I presume that it was intended to include the question of limitation also, though the Subordinate Judge has not discussed it.3. The liability of the 2nd defendant arises out of the indorsement and not on the note. The cause of action against him cannot arise earlier than the indorsement (dated 19th March, 1918). A payment of one rupee by the 1st defendant was endorsed on it and signed by the 1st defendant on 20th December, 1918. This saves limitation as against persons liable on the not...
Tag this Judgment!Movva Subbarao Vs. Movva Ademma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.72; (1924)47MLJ465
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit by the plaintiff to establish his adoption, to set aside certain alienations made by or on behalf of his adoptive father and to recover the family properties.2. Plaintiff was adopted by Movva Sankariah in 1911. He left the adoptive father's house in 1913. Sankariah suffered from dropsy in 1916 and 1917 and died on 23rd July, 1917. The 1st defendant is Sankariah's widow, the 2nd defendant is his mother and the other respondents are other alienees. The Subordinate Judge gave a partial decree to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals as to the rest of the properties.3. The first point argued for him is that Sankariah was insane from 1913 up to his death. It may be taken that he was insane from December, 1910 till the end of 1911 (D. W. 16) with perhaps occasional lucid intervals and even up to May, 1912 (D. W. 30). Not only there is no reliable evidence to show that he was insane in 1913, 1914 and 1915 but there is overwhelming documentary eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Reddiyar Vs. Lakshmana Reddiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad132
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit on a negotiable promissory-note (dated 24th December, 1915) payable on demand by the endorsee of the note against the maker (1st defendant) and the endorser (2nd defendant). The Subordinate Judge gave a decree against both the defendants.2. The 2nd defendant tiled this petition. In his written statement, he raised the question of limitation. The second point for determination stated by the Subordinate Judge is whether the 2nd defendant is liable. I presume that it was intended to include the question of limitation also, though the Subordinate Judge has not discussed it.3. The liability of the 2nd defendant arises out of the indorsement and not on the note. The cause of action against him cannot arise earlier than the indorsement (dated 19th March, 1918). A payment of one rupee by the 1st defendant was endorsed on it and signed by the 1st defendant on 20th December, 1918. This saves limitation as against persons liable on the not...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subbarao Vs. Ademma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad60
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit by the plaintiff to establish his adoption, to set aside certain alienations made by or on behalf of his adoptive father and to recover the family properties.2. Plaintiff was adopted by Movva Sankariah in 1911. He left the adoptive father's house in 1913. Sankariah suffered from dropsy in 1916 and 1917 and died on 23rd July, 1917. The 1st defendant is Sankariah's widow, the 2nd defendant is his mother and the other respondents are other alienees. The Subordinate Judge gave a partial decree to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals as to the rest of the properties.3. The first point argued for him is that Sankariah was insane from 1913 up to his death. It may be taken that he was insane from December, 1910 till the end of 1911 (D.W. 16), with perhaps occasional lucid intervals, and even up to May, 1912 (D.W. 30). Not only there is no reliable evidence to show that he was insane in 1913, 1914 and 1915, but there is over-whelming documentary evid...
Tag this Judgment!(Cadapalli) Yagnanarayana and anr. Vs. Kaja Venkata Krishna Rao and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1108
1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a mortgage bond Exhibit A, on 5th August, 1892 in favour of plaintiff's father, under which several items of property were mortgaged. On 25th August, 1895, one of these items, viz., item No. 6, was sold to the predecessor-in-title of the 7th defendant under Exhibit I, and he sold it to the predecessor-in-title of the 11th defendant under Exhibit II. On 15th August 1905, the mortgage-bond Exhibit A, was renewed by Exhibit B and item No. 6 was again included in the properties charged.2. The present suit was filed on 8th August, 1917. The plaintiff contends that the charge over item No. 6 that he had obtained under Exhibit A was kept alive by Exhibit B and cannot be affected by the intermediate conveyance (under Exhibit I) behind his back without his consent. The appellant concedes this, but argues that the suit is barred by limitation.3. If the only point that has to be decided is whether Exhibit B regarded only as an acknowledgment in 1905 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannatha Reddiar Vs. Lakshmana Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.932
Ramesam, J.1. This Revision petition arises out of a suit on a negotiable promissory-note (dated 24th December 1915) payable on demand by the endorser of the note against the maker (first defendant) and the endorser (2nd defendant). The Subordinate Judge gave a decree against both the defendants.2. The second defendant tiled this petition. In his written statement, he raised the question of limitation. The second point for determination stated by the Subordinate Judge is whether the second defendant is liable. I presume that it was intended to include the question of limitation also, though the Subordinate Judge has not discussed it.3.The liability of the second defendant arises out of the endorsement and not on the note. The cause of action against him cannot arise earlier than the endorsement (dated 19th March 1918). A payment of one Rupee by the first defendant was endorsed on it and signed by the first defendant on 20th December 1918. This saves limitation as against persons liable...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad816
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The facts of this case are not disputed. They are that a pot of toddy, in excess of the quantity, which one individual may possess, without license, was brought by a woman named Hanumakka to the house of the complainant K. Lakshmiah. The three petitioners and one man, who has been discharged, came to the complainant's house. The first petitioner, who, according to the Revenue Inspector, was an acting taliari, went inside the house and brought out the pot and placed it in the verandah, and all the three petitioners remained guarding it, until the police, to whom they sent a message about the commission of an abkari offence, arrived. When the Sub Inspector of police arrived, he completely turned the table on the petitioners and prosecuted them for house trespass. They were convicted, and when they appealed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, their appeal was dismissed. Now a private individual has no authority to seize and detain liquor, which he believes to be liable to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: theethumalai Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ221
Spencer, J.1. The questions referred to us are : (1) When a charge omits Section 149, I. P. Code, and the conviction is based on the provisions of that section, is that conviction necessarily bad, or does it depend on whether the accused has or has not been materially prejudiced by the omission? (2) When a charge has been framed Under Sections 326 and 149, I. P. Code, is a conviction under Section 326, I. P. Code, necessarily bad, or does this also depend on whether the accused has or has not been materially prejudiced by the form of the charge 2. The charge in the present case runs as follows: 'That you on or about the 14th February, 1923 at 2 p.m. at Sekkarakudi with a view to enforce the right to the punjai land S. No. 1162 of Sekkarakudi village, armed yourselves with deadly weapons and committed rioting and caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, and that you did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Subramania Mappilaiswami Naick and thereby committed offences pu...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppammal Vs. Muniappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ655
Odgers, J.1. In this case the minor's guardian was the mother, the present petitioner, appointed on 29th November, 1919. Some time before that the minor lived with 2nd respondent, her uncle, presumably against the wishes of the mother. The girl was returned to the mother on 18th December, 1919 and the present application is by the mother for the return of two jewels said to have been on the person of the minor when she went to 2nd respondent. The mother's attitude is a peculiar one. She denies having put in any such application and now says the District Judge has acted without jurisdiction. I think he has. The mother is no doubt a person interested in the minor under Section 43(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act but it is only the conduct or proceedings of any guardian appointed or declared by Court which can be called in question. The 2nd respondent has ceased at the end of 1919 to be even a de facto guardian and was not such at the date of the application by the mother in 1922. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »