Chennai Court September 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: Semalai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad574
Spencer, Offg.C.J.1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death, by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for the murder of Karuppana Goundan, a boy of thirteen years, son of a widow, who was the 4fch prosecution witness. There is clear proof in the depositions of this woman and P.W., 6, her co-tenant, that the deceased went on the morning of January 31st to the pen in the field, which was cultivated by them jointly, in order to take food for a dog, who was left on guard at that place. At about noon, P.W. 6 found the boy lying dead in the pen, with a severe wound on his neck, which severed the spine and the vertebral arteries. The evidence to connect the accused with the offence is that he was seen by P.W. 7, going to the pen, where the murder must have been committed and coming away quickly a short time afterwards and going eastward. P.W. 10 also says he saw him going to the spot; but he did not see him on the way back. P.W. 9 saw him at a distance of 2 furlongs from the pen and...
(Bhatti Prolu) Chandrasekhara Laxminarayana Vs. Ponukamati Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad942
Ramesam, J.1. The first point argued is whether Article 43-A of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act bars the suit. There is no allegation in the plaint that the suit amount was misappropriated by the defendant. The plaint though in Telugu contains English words and does not use the word 'misappropriate'. There is no allegation that any offence has been committed. Nor is there any allegation that the defendant dishonestly kept the amount with himself. Under these circumstances the cognizance of the suit in Small Cause Court cannot beheld to be tarred. The point was not taken in the Court below.2. Notice was given to the defendant before suit and it was referred to in the plaint.3. The suit is not barred by limitation by reason of Section 156, Act V of 1884, because the keeping of the money with the defendant is not an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Local Boards Act. The six months' rule does not apply.4. The first defendant admit...
Jaru Poojari Vs. Somakke and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad346
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant-appellant admittedly held the plaint property, as a tenant for a year, ending with 31st March, 1916, under a chalgeni chit, dated 30th May, 1915, executed by him in favour of one Ugga Setty the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent. He held over and the first respondent sent him a registered notice, dated 27th November, 1917 (Exhibit B), requiring him to quit by the following Vishusankramana (12th April, 1918). The lower Court found that the appellant wrongfully refused to receive it and it fixed him with the knowledge of its contents. Argument was advanced, on behalf of the appellant, that the notice was invalid, as it required surrender, only on 12th April. 1918, instead of 31st March, 1918. The learned District Judge overruled it, on the main ground that Vishusankramana is the customary day for termination of agricultural leases in South Canara.2. The only point taken before me in second appeal is that relating to the in validity of the no...
Jara Poojari Vs. Somakka (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.339
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant-appellant admittedly held the plaint property as a tenant for a year ending with 31st March 1916 under a chalgeni chit dated 30th May; 1915 executed by him in favour of one Ugga Chetty the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent. He held over and the 'first respondent sent him a registered notice dated 27th November 1917 (Ex. B) requiring him to quit by the following Vishusankaramana (12th April 1918). The lower Court found that the appellant wrongfully refused to receive it and it fixed him with, the knowledge of its contents. Argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant that the notice was invalid as it required surrender only on 12thApril 1918 instead of 31st March 1918. The learned District, Judge overruled it on the main ground that Vishusankramana is the customary day for termination of agricultural leases in South Kanara.2. The only point taken before me in second appeal is that relating to the invalidity of the notice. The lease is ...
Garapati Narasimudu and ors. Vs. Pinnamaneni Basava Sankaram, Minor, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.439; (1924)47MLJ749
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiff is the son of the 2nd defendant The 1st defendant is the Official Receiver of Masulipatam. Defendants 3 to 5 are vendees of the plaint property from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has brought this suit for declaration that the sale by the 1st defendant of the plaintiff's share of the property to defendants 3 to 5 is invalid and for a division by metes and bounds of his share of the property. The plaintiff's case is that the 2nd defendant, his father, was leading an immoral life and that he contracted debts for purposes which could not bind the plaintiff, his undivided son, and that the Official Receiver had no right to sell his share of the property to the defendants 3 to 5. The 2nd defendant applied to be adjudicated an insolvent on 24th January, 1918. His petition was referred for disposal to the Official Receiver on 31st January, 1918. The 2nd defendant was adjudicated insolvent on 15th July, 1918. The Official Receiver held an auction sale of the property...
The President, Taluk Board Vs. Jutur Chandrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad173; (1924)47MLJ774
Jackson, J.1. Petition to revise the order of the District Court of Bellary on a reference made to him under Section 57 of Madras Act XIV of 1920. The point referred to by the Judge, which is the sole question for determination, is whether an Honorary Magistrate who is disqualified for election as a member of a Local Board under Section 55(2)(iv) of the above Act, can relieve himself of that disqualification by submitting his resignation to Government, or whether, on the contrary, the disqualification subsists until Government have removed him from his office.2. The point was also referred to the Local Self-Government Department by the President of the District Board, Bellary, and it replied in G. O. No. 1308, L and M. Mis., dated 1st August, 1922 : 'An Honorary Magistrate is disqualified for election or appointment as a member of a Local Board before his resignation is accepted by the Government.' This order was filed before the District Judge who held that it was in literal conformit...
G. Narasimulu and ors. Vs. P. Basava Sankaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad249
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiff is the son of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is the Official Receiver of Masulipatam. Defendants 6 to 5 are vendees of the plaint pro party from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has brought this suit for declaration that the sale by the 1st defendant of the plaintiffa share of the property to defendants 3 to JIB invalid and for a division by metes and bounds of his share of the property. The plaintiff soaae is that the 2nd defendant his father, was leading an immoral life and' that he contracted debts for purposes which could not bind the plaintiff, his un divided son, and that the Official Receiver had no right to sell his share of the pro' porperty to the defendants 3 to 5. The 2nd defendant applied to be adjudicated an solvent on 24th January, 1918. His petition was referred for disposal to the Official Receiver on 31st January, 1918. The 2nd defendant was adjudicated insolvent on 15th July, 1918. The Official held an auction sale of the property of th...
The President, Taluk Board Vs. Tutur Chandrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.612
Jackson, J.1. Petition to revise the order of the District Judge of Bellary on a reference made to him under Section 57 of Madras Act XIV of 1920. The point referred to, by the Judge, which is the sole question for determination, is whether an Honorary Magistrate who is disqualified for election as member of a Local Board under Section 55(2)(4) of the above Act, can relieve himself of that disqualification by submitting his resignation to Government or whether, on the contrary, the disqualification subsists until Government have removed him from his office.2. The point was also referred to the Local self-Government Department by the President of the District Board, Bellary, and it replied in Government Order No. 1301, L and M dated 1st August 1922: 'An Honorary Magistrate is disqualified for election or appointment as a member of a Local Board before his resignation is accepted by the Government'. This order was filed before the District Judge who held that it was in literal conformity...
P. Somaraju Vs. M. Venkatasubbarayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad351a
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant's suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was for the recovery of Rs. 1,600, the value of two gold jewels, given to the defendant and also for the recovery of Rs. 300, the value of 20 sovereigns, together with interest on these amounts. The first item was covered by an unstamped promissory note and the promissory note said to have been executed in support of the second item, has been lost. The plaintiff also set up two agreements prior in date to these promissory notes, under which the defendant agreed independently to pay the plaintiff these amounts. These agreements have been found against the plaintiff, by the lower Appellate Court.2. As regards the claim, which was then put forward by the plaintiff based upon the original cause of action, apart from the promissory notes, the learned Subordinate Judge following a decision of this Court, in Muthu Sastrigal v. Viswanatha Pandam Sannadhi (1914) 38 Mad. 660, dismissed the claim. Mr. Soma...
Aiyisa Bibi Ammal Vs. Kalandaras Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1020
1. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal have been set out in Wallace, J.'s judgment and we do not propose to state them again. 'When the plaintiff who is a Mahomedan was a minor, two transactions were entered into by his de-facto guardian : first a mortgage of 1893 and the other a sale of 1900. They are void under Imambandi v. Mutsaddi A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 11 as they were entered into by a person not authorised to do so under the Mahammadan law.2. The mortgagee took possession and his possession was that of a trespasser. But as a right to a limited estate could be acquired by adverse possession he could have at the end of the statutory period claimed that he had acquired the mortgagee's interest. Before, however he had continuous possession as mortgagee for the statutory period, the sale-deed of 1900 in his favour was executed. From that moment his possession though also that of a trespasser, was the possession of one who claimed to be absolute owner of the property. The qua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »