Chennai Court August 1925 Judgments
In Re: Dewasikhamani Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.943
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the judgment and sentence of the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1924.2. The appellant was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to the amount of imprisonment already undergone.3. The appellant was an Amin of the Sub-Court at Kumbakonam and, admittedly, on the 27th February, 1923, he collected a sum of Rs. 190-4-0 in Papanasam. He did not pay this amount into Court until the 2nd of July 1923, and the lower Courts have found that he was guilty of criminal misappropriation. There is no evidence of what exactly he did with the money; but if an Amin collects a large sum of money and does not pay it into Court until five months have elapsed, it is a fair presumption that he has misappropriated the amount, unless he can explain his action. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Vasureddi Sree Chandra Mouleswara Prasada Bahadur Manni-sul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad157; 92Ind.Cas.402
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff leased 15 acres 65 cents of dry land to the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in 1907 for a period of 30 years. Defendants NOS. 1 to 4 have now sold 14 acres of land to defendants Nos. 5 to 10 and the 5th defendant has begun the erection of a building on 100 square yards, has planted about 25 or 30 trees and fenced in one acre of this land and sunk a well. The plaintiff accordingly brings this suit under Section 151 of the Estates Land Act for the ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The sale-deed of the 14 acres is not filed but the 8th defendant, who is the only defendant examined in the suit admits that the 14 acres were purchased for about Rs. 1,800 and that the land has been purchased for building purposes, cattlesheds and storage of hay. Although, therefore, the 5th defendant alone has begun building on the land, it is clear that defendants Nos. 5 to 10 have all purchased the land for building purposes and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have executed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kommineni Appalaswamy and anr. Vs. Kommineni Simhadri Appadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.844
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is a hopeless appeal and I do not desire td waste my words on it except on one matter. The onus was rightly found by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge to be on the defendants. Accordingly they opened the proceedings and called evidence first. The defendants adopted the objectionable practice of calling the first plaintiff as their witness, objectionable for this reason, that they were obviously bound to follow it up, and it appears clearly from the judgment that they did follow it up, by a king the Judge to disbelieve and set aside (sic) the evidence given by the first plaintiff. This practice has frequently been unfavourably commented upon by this Court and indeed also by the Privy Council. There is no objection whatever to an Advocate seeking to prove his case out of the mouth of the opposite party; but if he puts the opposite party into the box, he takes the risk of making statements made by that witness part of his own evidence. It is possible...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Narasimha Suryanarayana Alias Appa Rao Vs. Achuthana Lakshmina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad267; (1925)49MLJ746
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. This is a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. It relates to the temple dedicated to Chennakeswaraswarni at Cherukupalli, Repalle Taluq. There are five plaintiffs and the plaint asks for reliefs contemplated by Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge has passed a decree and the present appeals have been filed by the defendants in the suit.2. The appellants in Appeal No. 333 of 1922 firstly contend that the plaintiffs are not persons having an interest in the trust within the meaning of Section 92 and the suit, therefore, does not lie. The Lower Court has rejected this plea and, in my opinion, rightly. The 1st plaintiff is a resident of Arumbaka, and Cherukupalli, where the temple is situated, is a hamlet of this place. The 1st plaintiff's marriage was performed at the temple in question. He is the Karnam of Cherukupalli. The 2nd plaintiff resides at Balusulapaliem which is at a distance of two miles from Cherukupa...
Tag this Judgment!(Punumatsa) Venkatapathi Raju and ors. Vs. (Matina) Suryanarayana and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad206
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff claimed and obtained a decree for the recovery of half of the property which belonged to the late last maleholder Subba Rao, he and the first defendant being reversioners of equal degree. Subba Rao was adopted by the widow of Pedda Ramamurti under authority from her husband. Pedda Ramamurthi had one brother Chinna Ramamurthi who died issueless, a sister Pullamma who is the 5th defendant, and a third brother. Jagannathan who survived him and left a Will in favour of the son to be adopted by his brother's widow. In this Will, he provided that, if there should be disagreement between the boy to be adopted and his adoptive mother Ramamma or the testator's sister Pullamma, the women should have the usufruct of the lands in Mogdilin village for their lifetime and after their death that property should go to the adopted boy.2. Several complicated questions of law have arisen out of these facts which are unnecessary to be set out for the purposes of this second appe...
Tag this Judgment!M. V. Krishna Iyer and Sons Vs. William C. Yuille and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1150
Coutts-Trotter, C. J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a firm trading under the name and style of M. V. Krishna Iyer & Sons at Kumbakonam. The defendants are: (1) Messrs. William C. Yuille & Co., Ltd., carrying on business as merchants in Glasgow; and (2) the Indian Trading Co., who carried on business in Madras and acted as intermediators between the plaintiffs and Messrs. William C. Yuille & Co., Ltd. The suit is brought by the plaintiffs for the return of certain advances amounting in all to Rs. 5,000 together with interest made by them by way of deposit in respect of three contracts for the purchase by them of sheets of yellow metal. No question arises as to the liability in one form or another of the Indian Trading Co., but they have disappeared and no money is recoverable from them, and the plaintiffs, therefore, seek to affix liability upon the first defendants Messrs. William C. Yuille & Co., Ltd. The course of business is shown in the documents, and neither side thought it wo...
Tag this Judgment!Umamaheswara Mudaly and ors. Vs. Muniswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad642; (1926)50MLJ428
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. The Chief Justice: In this case the learned Judge in making his final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership has made two errors in taking the accounts. In the first place he has allowed interest on moneys drawn by a partner from the partnership fundsbe it capital or interest, it does not matter--a thing which it is not the practice to allow unless it is so provided in the deed. There is clear authority in the case of Meymott v. Meymott (1862) 31 BEAV 445 The other thing he has allowed is interest on certain advances up to the date not of the dissolution which had been effected by the preliminary decree but right up to the date of final decree. For that again there is clear English authority, Barfield v. Lough Borough (1872) LR 8 CH APP Cas 1 that such allowances cannot be made. The decree will be amended by disallowing those two items, interest at 9 per cent being allowed up to the date of the preliminary decree. After that date the usual ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khazi Muhammad Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad154
Jackson, J.1. Petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hosur, directing them under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code not to interfere with bull-play on a certain site on each recurring Pongal. The point for determination was whether this right existed, and whether it had been exercised on the last occasion before the institution of the inquiry.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate finds that the evidence of the interested parties Hindus on one side, and Mahomedans on the other, is directly conflicting but the Sub-Inspector is comparatively disinterested. He entirely supports the case of the Hindus, and says that bull-play has always taken place in the vacant site. On examining the site itself and the documents adduced by either side, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate comes to the same conclusion. That finding of fact cannot be traversed by revisional proceedings ; and, as clearly indicated by Sub-section (4) of Section 147, the aggrieved party should seek his re...
Tag this Judgment!Asanalli Nagoor Meera and ors. Vs. K.M. Mahadu Meera and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad259
1. These are appeals in suits filed on judgments obtained in the Colombo Court against a partnership whose, members were the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. The lower Court has found that the partnership did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Colombo Court, but as against some of the defendants, there was jurisdiction because they individually submitted to that jurisdiction. It has been held in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kalimuthu Pillai [1914] 37 Mad. 163; and: also in Janoo Hassain Sait v. Mohamad Ohuthu : AIR1925Mad155 , that the execution of a power of attorney authorizing an agent to conduct litigation in a foreign Court is a submission to jurisdiction. In the present case, it is clear from the deed of partnership and from the power of attorney by one of the managing partners, Exs. H and J, that the holder of the power was authorized to file suits, to defend suits and to carry on all manner of proceedings in the Courts in Ceylon. It is suggested for the respondents th...
Tag this Judgment!(Bohisetti) Mamayya Vs. the Official Receiver Guntur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad338
1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Guntur setting aside the alienation in favour of the appellant made by the insolvent on the 29th September 1918 under Ex. I. Mr. Varadachariar for the appellant contends that the sale is a bona fide sale for adequate consideration. Tho learned. Judge has attached importance to the fact that the properties sold were undervalued. In a case of fraudulent preference, it is not necessary for the Official Receiver to make out that the property alienated was undervalued. The gist of fraudulent preference lies in preferring one creditor to another when the insolvent is unable to meet his liabilities fully. In this case, the creditor presented a petition to adjudicate the insolvent on the 19th December 1918, and on the 10th March 1919, the insolvent presented an application for being adjudicated an insolvent. It is also in evidence that the insolvent alienated almost all the properties in his possession between the date of Ex. 1 and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »