Chennai Court October 1926 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.
Narayana Nair Vs. Manikkath Kulappura Veettil Bhargavi Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad361; (1927)52MLJ118
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a criminal, revision petition against an order passed by the Sub-diyisional Magistrate of Palghat Division under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as it awards maintenance for the younger (jf the petitioner's two children. The parties are Nairs and lived together in Sambandam up to within a certain period of the presentation of the petition. The counter-petitioner's defence was that he was not the father of the younger child. Witnesses were examined on both sides, but the Sub-divisional Magistrate found himself unable to arrive at any definite conclusion from their evidence as to the legitimacy of the child. He accordingly took the course of going to the village and examining without previous notice four of its residents as court-witnesses. After doing this he offered to examine any one else in the village whom the counter-petitioner might want; but he did not want to examine any one whom he had not already called. The evidence of these Court-...
Devarakonda Lakshminarasimham Vs. Nalluri Bapanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad473; (1927)52MLJ173
Curgenven, J.1. These are three criminal revision petitions arising out of C.C. Nos. 659 of 1925 and 69 of 1926 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tanuku. The complainant filed a complaint of mischief against six persons and after some witnesses had been examined the case was adjourned to 25th January, 1926, for further evidence. On that day, when the case was called on, the complainant was not present either in person or by pleader and the Sub-Magistrate, therefore, acquitted the accused under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. The next day the complainant applied to have the case restored to file and on 2nd February, 1926 the Sub-Magistrate passed an order accepting his explanation for his absence and restoring the case. On 13th February, 1926 the accused filed a petition to cancel that order and on 19th February, 1926 the Magistrate cancelled it. Cr.R.C. No. 278 of 1926 is against the order of acquittal dated 25th January, 1926, Cr.R. C: No. 418 of 1926, presented by...
In Re: Manikkath Kulappura Veettil Bhargavi Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.123
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Palghat Division under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as it awards maintenance for the younger of the petitioner's two children. The parties are Nairs and lived together in sambandam up to within a certain period of the presentation of the petition. The counter-petitioner's defence was that he was not the father of the younger child. Witnesses were examined on both sides, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found himself unable to arrive at any definite conclusion from their evidence as to the legitimacy of the child. He accordingly took the course of going to the village and examining without previous notice four of its residents as Court-witnesses. After doing this he offered to examine any one else in the village whom the counter-petitioner might want; but he did not want to examine any one whom he had not already called. The evidence of these Court-wi...
Meenakshisundaram Pillai Alias Sriman Thavalkaran Vs. Chandrakasa Naic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.98
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who is now the petitioner, sued three persons in the following circumstances. In a previous suit a decree had been obtained against the undivided brother of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and in execution of that decree a house supposed to belong to the judgment-debtor was purchased by the 1st defendant. The latter sold the house to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500 but the plaintiff was obstructed from obtaining possession by the 2nd and 3rd defendants claiming each l/3rd share. He, therefore, sued the three defendants to obtain delivery of the house together with mesne profits and in the alternative, if delivery were not decreed, to recover the purchase-money from the 1st defendant. When the suit came on for trial, the 2nd and 3rd defendants were ex parte and the plaintiff compromised with the 1st defendant, with the result that a decree was passed against all the defendants for possession and for a sum of Rs. 405 as mesne profits, this part of the decree being e...
Sri Rajah Ravu Sri Krishna Rao Alias Sri Rajah Ravu Venkatakumara Mahi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad733; 102Ind.Cas.713
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Godavari in O.S. No. 34 of 1919 on his file which was a suit brought by the respondent the Maharajah of Pittapuram to have it declared that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant, the widow of Venkata Rao, her deceased husband, is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and not affecting his rights in any way. The suit was decreed in plaintiff's favour by the District Judge and hence the appeal to us by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant it may be mentioned died pending the appeal and in her place Surya Prakasa Rao has been brought on the record provisionally as the 3rd respondent.2. The genealogical table given below shows the relationship of the parties concerned in this litigation and will serve to elucidate some of the questions raised: (1) NILADRI RAO ______________________________|____________________________ | | | (2) Surya Rao, (3) Lakshmi Venkayamma. (4) Venkat Rao, died 1850, died Dec...
Vemareddi Ramaraghavareddi and ors. Vs. the Rajah of Venkatagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ123
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore wherein he allowed a review of a previous order of his own and restored an execution petition which he had dismissed on the 1st March, 1926. The application to restore was made under Section 151, Order 9, Rule 9, or Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. It is admitted that Order 9, Rule 9, does not apply and it is but faintly contended that Order 47, Rule 1 applies in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Chhaju Ram v. Neki 43 MLJ 332 (PC). as to the meaning of the words 'or for any other sufficient reason' which occur in the rule. In that case their Lordships laid down that the words 'any other sufficient reason' mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified previously. In the present case, the dismissal on 1st March, 1926 was for default of appearance of the petitioner or his vakil. There is no doubt to my mind that Order 47, Rule 1, can have no application to the ...
Vittal Rao and anr. Vs. R. Hanumantha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad359; (1927)52MLJ171
1. This is an appeal against the refusal of the District Judge of Bellary to grant a succession certificate in order that the petitioners might recover a sum of money due on a life insurance policy. The learned Judge held, with reluctance, that the moneys did not form a debt under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act. The respondents are ex parte and we have not bad the advantage of hearing their arguments; but we have examined the cases relied on by the learned District Judge in support of the view that moneys due from an insurance company under a policy of insurance are not debts Within the meaning of Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act. The learned Judge deals with the decision in Oriental Government Security Life, Assurance Society, Ltd. v. Vanteddu Ammiraju ILR (1911) M 162. and the decision of the Full Bench in Bdlamba v. Krishnayya 25 MLJ 65 (FB). as confined to the applicability of Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act. But Oriental Government Security Li...
(Vemareddi) Ramaraghavareddi and ors. Vs. Raja of Venkatagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad355
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore wherein he allowed a review of a previous order of his own and restored an execution petition which he had dismissed on the 1st March 1926. The application to restore was made under Section 151, Order 9, Rule 9 or Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. It is admitted that Order 9, Rule 9 does not apply and it is but faintly contended that Order 47, Rule 1, applies in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Chajju Ram v. Neki A. I. R. 1922 P. C. 112 as to the meaning of the words 'or for any other sufficient reason' which occur in the rule. In that case their Lordships laid down that the words 'any other sufficient reason' mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified previously. In the present case, the dismissal on 1st March 1926 was for default of appearance of the petitioner or his vakil. There is no doubt to my mind that Order 47, Rule 1, can have no application to ...
Dost Muhammad Khan and anr. Vs. Hassarath Kibulae Sayyad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad599
1. In the hearing of this appeal we have been much handicapped by the fact that the appellant has printed none of the documents or other evidence on which he relies, so that the examination of evidence has been impossible and we have had to be guided solely by the remarks of the learned Judge in his judgment.2. The suit is brought under Section 92, Civil P. C., for a declaration that the defendant is not the rightful trustee of a certain Makhan and that a scheme be framed for the proper management of the Makhan and its affairs. As a good deal turns upon the nature of this institution, as far as it can be made out from the meagre materials at the disposal, it must be noted that the plaintiffs in para. 3 refer to it as the 'Ashraf Shah Sahib Makhan or mosque or darga at Dalvapalayam,' which they assert is a public religious and charitable trust and that among its endowments are three villages of Dalvapalayam, Vuluthur and Chakkrapalli granted by the then Rajah of the District for the sup...
Dost Muhammad Khan and anr. Vs. Hasarath Kibulae Sayyad Ghulam Ghouse ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.473
Missing Tiff Page No. 474 to 476...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »