Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi, Ltd. Vs. Kuddus Sahib an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad841; 94Ind.Cas.860
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Justice Courts-Trotter dismissing the plaintiff's suit ; the plaintiff, which is a fund, sued to recover Rs. 6,032-9-6 with costs and further interest. Plaintiff's case is that the 1st defendant applied for a loan to the fund of Rs. 10,000 on the mortgage of two of his properties; 17, Thacker Street, Vepery; and 17, Perambore Barracks Street. On his application the usual form and papers were filed with the 2nd defendant who is the appraiser and the 3rd defendant who is the surveyor of the fund in the usual course of business to value and appraise the properties; that they wrongfully valued the properties at about Rs. 12,000 and odd while the real value of the proper-ties was much lower ; that on the strength of their valuation the fund advanced Rs. 9,475 to the 1st defendant and got the mortgage deed Ex. C, executed on the 8th February 1921 ; that as the defendant did not pay the money due on the mortgage the mortgaged pro...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dyta Seetharamayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad354
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the First Glass Bench Magistrate of Bapatla. Two of the Magistrates found the accused guilty under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, but the Chairman of the Bench wrote a dissenting judgment holding that the accused was not guilty. No reasons were given for finding the accused guilty and, therefore, there is no judgment as required by law, I think, the conviction ought to be set aside and seeing it is a petty ease, it is Hot worth while sending the ease back for a retrial. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. I must here indicate my view, that, in cases wherever the Chairman of the Bench Magistrates is opposed to the majority and where he is not prepared to write a judgment for the majority, one of the Magistrates ought to be asked to write the judgment. Otherwise the Chairman, if he happens to differ from the majority would write only his view of the case, whether it be for conviction or acquittal; and the rest of the Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Selvamuthu Vs. P.K. Chinnappan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad361
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the First Class Bench of Magistrates, Palghat. The point raised by Mr. Nambiar is that the Bench of Magistrates ought to have sent fresh summonses to the witnesses cited by the petitioner. The petitioners cited the Extra Assistant Conservator of Forests and a forester as two of his witnesses to prove the evidence of alibi set up by him. The Bench Magistrate did issue sommonses to them, but they refused to accept service, as the summonses had not been sent through their superior officer. The petitioner applied to the Bench at a late stage for issuing fresh summonses but the Bench refused the request. It is contended before me that the Beach had no discretion to refuse to issue fresh summonses for the witnesses. Reliance is placed upon a decision in Daulat Singh v. Brinda Balder [1903] 30 Cal. 121. There, the learned Judges held, that if a Magistrate sent summonses to the witnesses in a summons case the Magistrate had no d...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmuga Velayuda Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad945
Spencer, J.1. The land acquired in this case was acquired for the purpose of being allotted for building houses but the use to which the land was being put, at the time of acquisition was that of a cocoanut tope. The District Judge has given compensation under two heads, first for the income derivable from the cocoanut trees, which he capitalized at five year' purchase and, secondly, he has given compensation for the land at Rs. 1,200 an acre. It is obvious that the same land cannot simultaneously be used as a cocoanut tope and for buildings. P.W. 7, who is the gumasta of the claimant and who speaks to the leasing-of the trees, says that no yield was got from the land. In Secretary of State v. Duma Dal Shaw 13 C.W.N. 487 it was observed, that land acquired under this Act should not be valued as a building site and at the same time valued upon the footing of the trees remaining there. The two claims, as pointed out by the learned Judges, are inconsistent. The learned District Judge took...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Valayuda Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.639
1. The land acquired in this cases was acquired for the purpose of being allotted for building houses, but the use to which the land was being put at the time of acquisition was that of a cocoa-nut tope. The District Judge has given compensation under two heads, first for the income derivable from the cocoanut trees, which he capitalised at five years' purchase, and secondly he has given compensation for the land at Rs. 1,200 an acre. It is obvious that the same land cannot simultaneously be used as a cocoanut tope and for buildings. P. W. No. 7, who is the gumastah of the claimant and who speaks to the leasing of the trees, says that no yield was got from the land. In the Secretary of State for India v. Duma Lal Shaw 4 Ind. Cas. 581 : 13 C.W.N. 487, it was observed that land acquired under this Act should not be valued as a building site and at the same time valued upon the footing of the trees remaining there. The two claims, as pointed out by the learned Judges, are inconsistent. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ry.V. Ayiswaryanandaji Saheb (Died) and ors. Vs. Ry. Sivaji Raja Saheb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad84; (1925)49MLJ568
Spencer, J. 1. Sivaji, the last Rajah of Tanjore, died in 1855. After his death the East India Company took possession not only of the Raj of Tanjore and the private properties of the late Rajah, but also certain pagodas and devasthanams which had been in his possession and management up to the date of his death. It was held by the Privy Council that the East India Company's usurpation of this property amounted to an act of State of which the ordinary Civil Courts could not take cognizance. Subsequently the Senior Rani Kamakshi Bai Saheba petitioned Government for a restoration of the estate and also of the devasthanams. The estate was restored by proceedings of the Madras Government, dated 21st August, 1862, which we have dealt with in another place. The order restoring the devasthanams was dated the 19th March, 1863.2. In her memorial, dated the 24th December, 1862, Kamakshi Bai Saheba prayed that the pagodas and charitable institutions which had been founded from time to time by mem...
Tag this Judgment!(Balijepalli) Seshayya Vs. Balijepalli Subbarayudi Alias Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1157
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Kistna. The contention of Mr. Rama Rao for the petitioner is that no appeal lay from the order of the Joint Magistrate as no complaint had been made by him. We have sent for the complaint; and from it it appears that he complained of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against four parsons. The complaint does not give the particulars of the offence, nor does it mention the offence, which each of the accused person is stated to have committed. A complaint ought to contain particulars of the offence with which a man is charged, Though in the Indian procedure there is no such thing as a regular indictment as in the English procedure, yet a complaint ought to contain sufficient particulars as to the offence with which a man is charged, and in the case of an offence under Section 193 a complaint ought to mention the particulars; for Section 193 consists of two parts : one relating to false statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Balijeppalli Seshayya Vs. Balijeppalli Subbarayudi Alias Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.661
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Kistna. The contention of Mr. Rama Rao for the petitioner is that no appeal lay from the order of the Joint Magistrate as no complaint had been made by him. We have sent for the complaint; and from it appears that he complained of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against four persons. The complaint does not give the particulars of the offence, nor does it mention the offence which each of the accused persons is stated to have committed. A complaint ought to contain particulars of the offence with which a man is charged. Though in the Indian procedure, there is no such thing as a regular indictment as in the English procedure, yet a complaint ought to contain sufficient particulars as to the offence with which a man is charged, and in the case of an offence under Section 193 a complaint ought to mention the particulars, for Section 193 consists of two parts, one relating to false statements ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopala Chetty Vs. V. Narayanaswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad681
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff who attained his majority in 1918 for an account of the properties left by his grandfather, Kasturi Chetti, who died in 1912j and for division of the same between the plaintiff and the defendant and for accounts and mesne profits. Kasturi Chetti left self-acquired properties which he divided equally between his grandson, the plaintiff, and his own third son, the defendant. The defendant raised a number of pleas including a prior division and the issues were: (1) whether the division pleaded by the defendant is true; (2) whether the defendant is accountable to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint. If so, to what extent? and (3) Is the claim to mesne profits barred by limitation?2. It appears from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that there was no final division of the immovable properties as alleged by the defendant and that; as to the second issue a plea was taken that the defendant was the guardian of the plaintiff and kept ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopala Chetti Vs. V. Narayanaswami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.33
1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff who attained his majority in 1918 for an account of the properties left by his grandfather, Kasturi Chetty, who died on 1912, and for division of the same between the plaintiff and the defendant and for accounts and mesne profits. Kasturi Chetty left self-acquired properties which he divided equally between his grandson, the plaintiff, and his own third son the defendant. The defendant raised a number of pleas including a prior division and the issues were 46 M. 190; 31 M. L. T. 221. whether the division pleaded by the defendant is true? (1823) 37 E. R. 1169; Turn. & R. 438; 24 R. R. 95. whether the defendant, is accountable to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint? If so, to what extent and 8 Ind. Cas. 189; 12 Bom. L. R. 881. is the claim to mesne profits barred by limitation.2. It appears from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that there was no final division of the immoveable properties as alleged by the defendant and that as to the 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »