Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Narayan Reddy and ors. Vs. Enumula Bojamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.668
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case an unfortunate error has crept in the procedure which has vitiated the trial. It resulted from the too frequent transfers of the Magistrates concerned in this case. The First Magistrate 'that tried the case framed the charge when he was transferred. When another Magistrate took up the case, an application was made to that Magistrate to order a trial de novo under Section 350, proviso (a) and that Magistrate ordered a de novo trial accordingly. But, before the trial began, that Magistrate was also transferred, and a Third Magistrate, a new man, was appointed as the Sub-Magistrate of the place when he took up the case for trial, his attention was drawn to the order passed by his predecessor granting a de novo trial; but instead of granting a de novo trial, what he did was merely to re-call the prosecution witnesses and give leave to the accused's Vakil to cross-examine those witnesses. This is not the meaning of 'de novo' trial. De novo trial means' a new...
Tag this Judgment!Singamani Pandithan Vs. Munibadra Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.514
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff purchased some property from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 under Ex. A. After the sale, a suit was brought by one Ammani Ammal for half the share of the property on the ground that she was entitled to it as the heir of her deceased son. That suit was decreed by the first Court on 20th March 1913. There was an appeal against the decree which was decided on 13th April 1914 and the second appeal was decided on 1st March 1917. The plaintiff who was not given possession under the sale sued for possession of the property and he was given a decree for possession of half the property on 22nd December 1913. The present suit was filed on 10th November 1917.2. Mr. patanjali Sastri, for the respondent, contends that the suit is barred by limitation. His contention is that either Article 62 applies or Article 97. Under Article 97 of the Limitation Act a period of 3 years is given for bringing a suit for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards fails. The Subo...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Velugoti Sri Govinda Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. Mudumbi S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.748; (1925)49MLJ420
Odgers, J.1. The suit is filed against decisions of the Head Surveyor and Assistant Director of Survey underSection 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897. The survey authorities decided that certain plots of lands were not as alleged by the plaintiff within the boundaries of the village of Inagaloor of which he is the proprietor. The Subordinate Judge has found the suit bad for multifariousness and put plaintiff to his election on the ground that the disputes are not connected with each other. He also speaks of encroachments but I am unable to see any reference to such in the plaint. Now under the old Code it was held in Doraiswami Pillai v. Muthuswami Mooppan ILR (1903) M 94. that a suit might be brought against a number of purchasers of different items of land distrained and sold under the Rent Recovery Act as the cause of action, viz., the wrongful sale, was the same against all the defendants. So here in my opinion it is the decision of the survey authorities and it should be r...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.P.L.M.R. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.R.M.S.V.R. Ramanathan C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad165
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to a water course running into a urani in the village of Puduvayal in Ramnad District. The Magistrate in the first instance had held that this urani into which this water course ran was a private one and therefore he could not take action under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. On the parties coming up in revision to this Court, this Court revised that finding and held that the urani was a public tank and directed fresh order to be passed. The Magistrate has now taken evidence and under Section 133 has directed the petitioners before me to restore the embankment of the catchment area to its original condition about a foot high and to close the newly opened channel from the north to the south, marked-A in Ex. A, and to remove all obstructions caused by them to the free flow of the water into the urani within 15 days from the date of the order. Dr. Swam...
Tag this Judgment!Marath Veetil Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. CochIn Sircar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad143
Phillips, J.1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the demise evidenced by Ex. VII creates a perpetual or irredeemable tenure of the land. Both the lower Courts have found that it does not do so, but it is contended that although the lower appellate Court has applied the principles laid down in decisions of this Court, it has failed to have regard to any other circumstances in the case. The relevant portion of the document is as follows:The pattam being one hundred and twenty paras of paddy, out of the pattam of 120 paras of paddy, deducting 60 paras allotted for your anubhavam, and deducting 30 paras for assessment out of the remaining 60 paras, the balance payable yearly is 30 paras of paddy2. The document is not described as an anubhavam deed, nor is there any mention of anubhavam tenure. In construing these documents the law has been laid down in Vythilingam Pillai v. Kuthiravattah Nair (1906) 29 Mad. 501, as follows:The point to be borne in mind with regard to 'Anubhav...
Tag this Judgment!Janakiram Chatty and ors. Vs. G.C. Nagamony Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad273
Kumaraswami Sastry, J.1. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the respondent who is legatee under the Will of one O. Kandaswamy Mudaliar took the property bequeathed under the Will as a tenant-in-common with his father and brothers or as a joint tenant.2. The Will which has been probated is filed as Ex. F The testator Kandaswamy Mudaliar died leaving a widow, three sons and two daughters. He also left two brothers one of whom was Kadirvelu Mudaliar (father of the respondent) who was appointed executor. There was another brother, Krishnaswamy Mudaliar, who had two sons. So far as the respondent is concerned, the terms of the Will concerning him are very short. Paragraph 4 of the Will says:Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 under assets in paragraph 1, above, I bequeath and leave to my brother G. Kadirvelu Mudaliar and his sons.3. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that in consideration of the help given by Kadirvelu Mudaliar as regards the business carried on by the testator, he bequea...
Tag this Judgment!Raja V. Govinda Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. M. Srinivasa Ramach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1237
Odgers, J.1. The suit is filed against decisions of the Head Surveyor and Assistant Director of Survey under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897. The survey authorities decided that certain plots of lands were not, as alleged by the plaintiff, within the boundaries of the village of Inagaloor, of which he is the proprietor. The Subordinate Judge has found the suit bad for multifariousness and put plaintiff to his election on the ground that the disputes are not connected with each other. He also speaks of encroachments, but I am unable to see any reference to such in the plaint. Now under the old Code it was held in Doraiswamy Pillai v. Muthuswami Moopan (1904) 27 Mad. 94 that a suit might be brought against a number of purchasers of different items of land distrained and sold under the Rent Recovery Act as the cause of action, viz., the wrongful sale, was the same against all the defendants. So here in my opinion it is the decisions of the survey authorities, and it shou...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedharan Nambudri and ors. Vs. V.K.M.P. Perumbra Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1254
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit for redemption of a kanom and purankadam wherein it was agreed that Rs. 1,984-2 4 and 493 paras, 2 edangalais, and 2 nalis of paddy valued at Rs. 281-13-5 is fixed as the amount of the purankaclam. The question is whether the Court-fee payable on the plaint is the amount stated in the document, Ex. B. - if so, it is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif or whether the defendant is entitled to say that the plaintiff ought to value the paddy not at the price assessed by the parties at the time Ex. B. was entered into, but at the market price on the day when the plaint was presented. The market value of the paddy per para in Ex. B works out at 10 annas a para whereas the learned District Munsif (who went into the question as a separate issue has found that the market price at the time of the presentation of the plaint was 12 annas a para. If the latter valuation is to be adopted, then the valuation of the suit is above Rs. 3,000. If...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.P.L.V.R. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.R.M.S.V.R. Ramanathan C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.537
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. with reference to a water-course running into an urani in the village of Puduvayal in Ramnad District. The Magistrate in the first instance had held that this urani into which this water-course ran was a private one and, therefore, he could hot take action under Section 133, Cr.P.C. On the parties coming up in revision to this Court, this Court revised that finding and held that the urani was a public tank and directed fresh orders to be passed. The Magistrate has now taken evidence and under Section 133 has directed the petitioners before me to restore the embankment of the catchment area to its original condition about a foot high and to close the newly opened channel from the north to the south marked A in Ex.-A and to remove all obstructions caused by them to the free flow of water into the urani within 15 days from the date of the orders. Dr. Swaminathan appearing for them has con...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vodde Subbigadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ598
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the accused Vodde Subbigadu has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Anantapur under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of one Vodde Madduleti and also under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous hurt to Madduleti's wife Venkatamma on the evening of the 21st February, 1924. In so doing the Sessions Judge rejected a plea of insanity which was put forward on behalf of the accused. The plea was not that he was insane at the time of the hearing but that he was insane at the time when the occurrence took place. On the evidence in the case which has been set out by the learned Sessions Judge and discussed by him carefully there can be no doubt that the accused did cause the death of Madduleti and also caused grievous hurt to his wife as the prosecution witnesses have deposed. It would seem that on the day in question the accused went to the place where Vodde Madduleti and his wife and some of the prosecution witnesses were working and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »