Chennai Court August 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.
In Re: Turka HussaIn Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.1051; (1924)47MLJ661
ORDERRamesam, J.1. I entirely agree with the remarks of the Sessions Judge in his letter of reference. The decisions mentioned by him, to, Ramtohal v. Emperor ILR (1909) C 385 and Rangacharlu v. Emperor ILR (1905) M 336 both lay down that a criminal appeal should not be heard at the time of the presentation of the papers, even for the purpose of dismissal under Section 421.2. The posting for the purpose of hearing under Section 421 must be a special posting after a reasonable time not less than a week. Ramtohal v. Emperor ILR (1909) C 385. This is the practice in the High Court and ought to be the practice in the mofussil wherever it is not. 3. I may also point out that the view of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, viz., that a pleader who has looked into the papers of a case for the purpose of drafting grounds of appeal is guilty of professional misconduct if he is not prepared to argue the appeal at the time of presentation of the appeal papers is not correct.4. It is well known...
In Re: Pulipati Venkiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ662
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1oo for ' receiving a bribe of Rs. 20 from a villager on the understanding that he would get him some land on darkhast in his capacity as Karnam, an offence punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code (vide 'Charge').'2. The villager (prosecution 1st witness) says that he gave the Karnam Rs. 20 as he promised that he would get Government land for him. He got the land but only half as much as he expected. The learned Sessions Judge takes the complaint to be that the Karnam was given the bribe in the hope that he would recommend the grant of land. He managed to convince the parties that the land was as good as got, and so the charge is proved that the Karnam promised to get the land for the villager.3. It is difficult to say from all this exactly what the Karnam is supposed to have done. In a charge under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the accused took th...
Mannam Latchayya Vs. Surabathuni Kotamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.945; (1924)47MLJ743
Devadoss, J.1. In this appeal the question is whether the appeal to the Court below was competent or not. The and defendant was the appellant before the lower appellate Court. The suit was brought by the plaintiff alleging that he was the adopted son of Ramaswami. The 1st defendant is Ramaswami's widow and the 2nd defendant her brother's daughter. The 1st defendant set up a gift in favour of the 2nd defendant. The District Munsif found against the alleged adoption and found in favour of the alleged gift, but held that the gift was not valid. The 2nd defendant appealed against that finding of the District Munsif, and the Subordinate Judge held that the gift was valid. The plaintiff prefers this Second Appeal and contends that the 2nd defendant was not competent to prefer an appeal against a decree which was in her favour inasmuch as the District Munsif had dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. This point is covered by very clear authorities so far as this Court is concerned and t...
M. Latchayya Vs. S. Kottamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad264a
Devadoss, J.1. In this appeal, the question is whether the appeal to the Court below was competent or not. The 2nd defendant was the appellant before the lower Appellate Court. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, alleging that he was the adopted son of Ramaswamy, The 1st defendant is Ramaswamy's widow and the 2nd defendant her brother's daughter. The 1st defendant set up a gift in favour of the 2nd defendant, The District Munsiff found against the alleged adoption and found in favour of the alleged gift, but held that the gift was not valid, The 2nd defendant appealed against that finding of the District Munsiff and the Subordinate Judge held that the gift was valid. The plaintiff prefers this second Appeal and contends that the 2nd defendant was not competent to prefer an appeal against a decree, which was in her favour inasmuch as the District Munsiff had dismissed the plaintifi's suit with costs.2. This point is covered by very clear authorities, so far as this Court is concerned...
Pulipati Venkiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.940
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to six months regorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 for 'receiving a bribe of Rs. 20 from a villager on the understanding that he would get him some land on darkkast in his capacity as Karnam, an offence punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code (vide charge).2. The villager (prosecution first witness) says that he gave the Karnam Rs. 20 as he promised that he would get Government land for him. He got the land but only half as much as he expected. The learned Sessions Judge takes the complaint to be that the Karnam was given the bribe in the hope that he would recommend the grant of land. He managed to convince the parties that the land was as good as got, and so the charge is proved that the Karnam promised to get the lands for the villager.3. It is difficult to say from all this exactly what the Karnam is supposed to have done. Inacharge under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, it mustbeshownthat the accused took the bribe...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Katta Prakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.343; (1924)47MLJ658
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are two appeals by the Crown against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Kistna of Katta Prakasam, accused in C.C. No. 20 of 1922, and Annamraju, accused in C.C. No. 21 of 1922, of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code.2. One Gangamma, complainant in a case pending before the First Class Bench Magistrate of Masulipatam, applied before the District Magistrate for a transfer of the case. This application was supported by two affidavits presented by the com-plainark's pleader, one by Katta Prakasam, the son of the complainant, and the other by Annamraju, a stranger, which contained certain allegations against the President of the Bench of Magistrates which were on subsequent enquiry found to be false. The transfer application was rejected and the two accused were charged before the Sub-divisional 1st Class Magistrate, Gudivada, with having committed offences under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-divisional Magistrate on going into the evidenc...
L.A. Subramania Iyer Vs. R.H. Hitchcock
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad950; 85Ind.Cas.900
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by Mr. Hitchcock, the District Superintendent of Police, South Malabar against five defendants for damages for libel, contained in a report issued in April-May, 1921, by them entitled - 'Police Crimea in Ottapalem.' The Sub-ordinate Judge gave a decree for Rs. 6,000. Only the 4th defendant, the only defendant who filed a written statement (in the proper sense of the term) and defended the case, appeals.8. Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Iyer, for the appellant argued, at the outset, certain preliminary matters relating to the course of the trial in the Court below. The issues were settled on 15th February, 1922 and the case came on for trial on the 3rd April, 1922 to which day it was first posted. It is now argued (1) that the Subordinate Judge erred in refusing the adjournment prayed for by the 4th defendant on that day and in proceeding with the examination of plaintiff's witnesses; (2) that the Subordinate Judge ought to have recalled the plaintif...
(Kopparaju Gunichandill) Sekhard Rao and ors. Vs. Kopparaju Ramaraju S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1066
1. Two points have been argued in this second appeal. The first is that Kamamma prescribed only for a widow's title and secondly, that her claim to title by adverse possession is barred by reason of the decision in Suit No. 57 of 1914.2. As regards the first point, there is no evidence that Kamamma ever declared that she was in possession of the plaint property in her right as the widow of her husband. The evidence is that her mother in law died in 1894 and after her death Kamamma was in possession for more than 12 years. Her possession was the possession of an ordinary trespasser and the onus is upon the reversioner to show that she prescribed for a title less than that of a full owner. Vide Lachhcm Kunwar v. Manorath Ram (1895) 22 Cal. 445 and Vengiduswamy Aiyar v. Narayanaswamy Aiyar (1914) 24 I.C. 880.3. As regards the second point: there was no decision that the property in the possession of Kamamma was the property that she inherited from her husband Venkatarayudu. The previous s...
L.R. Maddirala Ramanamma Vs. Karri Bhimaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ535
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Appeal No. 17 (a) of 1922 in C.M.P. No. 1390 of 1921 of the Court of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapur.2. Petitioner applied to set aside the sale of property sold under the decree in O.S. No. 554 of 1912 of the Cocanada District Munsif's Court. So far as his share is concerned, the lower Courts allowed the application. Counter-petitioner appeals.3. The petitioner had been exonerated from the decree, but nevertheless his property was sold and there must admittedly be restitution unless his application can be shown to be time-barred. The sale was in 1915 and the application in 1921. There can be no doubt in the light of Rajagopala Aiyar v. Ramamijarhariar I.L.R. (1923) M 288 : 46 MLJ 104. that Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies and petitioner will be time-barred unless he has pleaded and established facts which save him from the bar. I agree with the appellant that he cannot set up a new ca...
Nalannad Alias Palliprom Alias Thattukkasseri Manakkal Narayanan Nambu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.973; (1924)47MLJ686
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 25 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam (O.S. No. 326 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ottapalam).2. Plaintiffs sue to recover Rs. 2,917-3-2 due under two hypothecation deeds executed to them in 1905 by one Pappi Antarjanam. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,235-6-9 and defendants 2 and 3 appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 were the minor sons of a Nambudri, defendant 1, since deceased. He was an idiot and deaf. Pappi Antarjanam is his second wife and step-mother of defendants 2 and 3. The plaint sets forth that at the time when she executed these mortgages Pappi Antarjanam was the ' manager ' (sic) of the defendants' mana on her own behalf and as guardian of the three defendants. The defendants in their written statement besides alleging fraud contended that Pappi Antarjanam had no authority to execute any document whatever. The minors were not under her guardianship.3....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »