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.
Pulugurta Somaraju Vs. Machiraju Venkata Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.389
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. Visvanatha Pandara Sannadhi 21 Ind. Cas. 864: (1914) M.W.N. 58 dismissed the claim. ...
In Re: Vudigalapudi Gadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad317
ORDERWallace, J.1. The point raised in the revision case is of some interest. The petitioner has, as the complainant in C.C. No. 107 of 1924, on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Vizianagram, charged the respondents with theft. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused. His predecessor had examined 8 witnesses for the prosecution, and when the present Magistrate took up the case, the accused asked for the witnesses to be re-summoned and re-heard. The complainant was accordingly re-summoned and again examined. The accused appears then to have stated that he did not want the other witnesses recalled and the Magistrate proceeded to judgment. The petitioner argues that the Magistrate had no right to break off a de novo trial in the middle and that he was bound to re-summon and re-hear all the witnesses again end that the omission to do so vitiates the trial.2. Now, as I read Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code it may he right to describe a fresh enquiry as a de novo trial, when...
Vairavan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kannappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1029
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff's suit was to recover Rs. 3,307 and odd made up of the amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and also damages on account of breach of contract committed by the defendant in the following circumstances. The defendant's kariasthan contracted with the agent of the plaintiff on the 5 to of August 1917 to supply 500 bags of rice at Rs. 11-11-0 per bag within three weeks and he got an advance of Rs. 1,500 as per varthamanam executed on that date. On the 26th of August 1917 he received a further sum of Rs. 2,500 from the plaintiff's agent towards the value of the rice bags to be supplied. The defendant supplied only 130 bags of rice as par contract. He did not supply the balance. The defendant pleaded amongst other things, that there was an understanding between the parties that rice was to be supplied only after the price of the whole rice was paid to the defendant and since this was not done he did not commit a breach...
In Re: Vadigalapydigadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.366
ORDERWallace, J.1. The point raised in this revision case is of some interest. The petitioner as the complainant in C.C. No. 107 of 1924 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate of Viziyanagaram charged the respondents with theft. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused, His predecessor had examined witnesses for the prosecution, and when the present Magistrate took up the case, the accused asked for the witnesses to be re-summoned and re-heard. The complainant was accordingly re-summoned and again examined. The accused appears then to have stated that he did not want the other witnesses re-called, and the Magistrate proceeded to judgment. The petitioner argues that the Magistrate had no right: to break off a de novo trial in the middle and that he was bound to re-summon and rehear all the witnesses again and that the omission to do so vitiates the trial.2. Now, as I read Section 350 of the Cr. P.C. it may be right to describe a fresh enquiry as a de novo trial when the Magistrate h...
In Re: Kutti Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad189; (1924)47MLJ689
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed against the petitioners under Section 110, cls. (d), (e) and (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code, binding them over to be of good behaviour for three years by executing a bond each in the sum of Rs. 3,000 with two sureties each for Rs. 1,500 as being habitual extortioners and oppressors of their fellow-villagers. Proceedings were first taken against them under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, but these were dropped on the 5th of January, 1923, and apparently on the same day the proceedings which form the subject-matter of this revision were started against them on a fresh petition. A preliminary notice under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, was sent to them on or about the 10th of January, 1923. A joint enquiry against both the petitioners was then held and the order complained against was passed by the Sub-divisional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore and this has been confirmed by the District Magist...
M. Maruthavanaswami Alias Sadasiva Desika Pandarasannadhi Avergal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad240; 85Ind.Cas.414; (1924)47MLJ770
1. These revision petitions have been filed in respect of two orders of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated 29th March, 1924 and 2nd May, 1924. The proceedings before him were under Section 16, Clause 7 of Madras Regulation III of 1802, and the learned Judge by his first order directed that affidavit evidence should be adduced and by his second order refused permission to the petitioner before us to cross-examine the deponents to the affidavits.2. The facts are shortly these. The Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram Mutt died on or about the 28th October, 1923. The Sub-Magistrate having jurisdiction over the locality, looked and sealed the rooms containing some moveables belonging to the Mutt and sent up a report to the Collector of Tanjore and he directed the Sub-Magistrate to hand over the keys of the rooms to the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, who was requested by the Collector to take proceedings under Regulation III of 1802. The present petitioner who is the Pandarasannadhi of S...
Muddanna Adenna and ors. Vs. Muddanna Subanna (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad922
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants.2. The relation between the parties is shown in the following pedigree: ______________________________________________| | | || | Subbanna Adenna (1st defendant).Laksh- Ramanna (plaintiff. |mayya alleged to | | have adopted Veerayya _________|____________ 5th . (5th | | | defendant) defendant). 2nd Narasayya 4th (M. Subbamma defendant (3rd defendant. 6th defendant) defendant). | Predeceased son M. Hanumayamma (7th defendant)3. The parties belong to the Kamma sect of the Sudra caste. They belong to a village, Enamadala, in the Narasaraopet taluq of the Guntur district. The family is admittedly a rich family. There were originally four brothers. The eldest of them, Lakshmayya, was said to have divided himself from the family long ago. (D.W.-30 years according to Exhibit XLVI.) It is admitted in the plaint that the other three brothers remained undivided till 1908. The eldest of them, R...
P.S.K. Haji Sait Muhammad Abdul Gaffur Rowther and anr. Vs. K.E.S. Muh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad297; 92Ind.Cas.139; (1924)47MLJ730
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The onus of proving what profits might, with due diligence, have been received in any year lies upon the party claiming mesne profits, but the onus of proving what profits the person in wrongful possession actually received dies upon the person in possession. Vide Ramakka v. Nagesam : AIR1925Mad145 . The best evidence of the profits derivable from the cultivation of a particular field in any given year is the evidence as to the actual yield in that year minus the cost of cultivation. But such evidence in order to be useful, must be exact, and it is always open to 'the party out of possession to falsify the accounts as to the number of measures of grain gathered at the harvest or the price prevailing, when they were sold or the cost of cultivation. He may also adduce evidence to prove that the occupant was not diligent and might have got greater profits by proper diligence. In the absence of evidence to actual profits, the next best evidence as...
Dharmala Kamayya Vs. Bhimarasettei Paridesi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1140; (1925)49MLJ303
Devadoss, J.1. The point raised in this second appeal is that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 do not claim the property adversely to the 1st defendant and that a decree having been executed against the 1st defendant, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled to set up their own right in opposition to the plaintiff's claim. The District Munsif found that there was symbolic delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The District Judge accepted that finding and held that symbolic delivery could not bind defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and as they have been in possession all these years, the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation. It is difficult to follow the reasoning of the learned Judge. Third defendant is the widow of the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant is his son. Third defendant could not have had possession of her own during her husband's lifetime. First defendant in the previous suit contended that it was ancestral property and that he was in possession. So 3rd defendant could not have had po...
Venkata Ramani Aiyar and anr. Vs. M. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad713; 87Ind.Cas.660; (1925)48MLJ688
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question of the correctness of the order of the Subordinate Judge regarding the Court-fee payable on the plaint before him. The plaintiffs have filed this suit in respect of a mortgage executed by defendants 2 and 3, that is, their father and brother respectively, in favour of the 1st defendant. The family along with defendants 2 and 3, that the mortgage is not supported by consideration and that it is not binding upon them. The plaintiffs contend that Court-fee is payable under Schedule II, Article 17-A (1) of the Court Fees Act, that is, that the plaint is filed to obtain a declaratory decree and no consequential relief is asked. On the other hand, the defendants urge that the suit falls within Section 7, Clause 4 (c) of the Court Fees Act; in other words, that the plaintiffs seek to obtain a declaratory decree as well as consequential relief. The learned Subordinate Judge agreeing with the defendants' contention directed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »