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.
Kaliba Sahib and ors. Vs. Periathambia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad439
Waller, J.1. The only question for consideration is that of limitation. The decisions of this Court seems to me to lay down that the claim for faslis 1326 and 1327 is barred by limitation vide Ramakrishna Chetty v. Subbaraya Iyer [1915] 38 Mad. 101 Sundaram Iyer v. Muthu Ganapathi Iyer [1912] M. W. N. 652 and Raja of Pittapur v. Venkata Subba Row [1916] 39 Mad. 645 and that it makes no difference whether the landlord is suing on a registered deed or not.2. The appeals are dismissed. Second Appeal No. 480 of 1925 is dismissed with costs....
Narayana Aiyar Vs. Y. E. P. K. R. V. Subramania Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1113
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. In this criminal revision petition, the Local Fund Overseer of Devakotai applies for the revision of the orders of acquittal passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadanai in C. C. Nos. 59 to 61 of 1925. In these cases the respondent was prosecuted under Section 207 (1) (c), Madras Local Boards Act, for failure to obey a notice issued to him to remove encroachments. He received the notice on 16th January 1925 and had 30 days within which to comply with it. On his failure to do so within that time the prosecution cases were instituted on 17th April 1925 so that they were within the three months provided by the Act. As I understand the judgment, the Sub-Magistrate, who has acquitted the accused upon several grounds, accepts as one that the prosecution was instituted beyond the period of limitation. In this he was clearly wrong. He takes the offence to be the making of the encroachment itself, and not the failure to comply with the order to remove it, and it is not conte...
Nathar Rowther Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad816a
JUDGEMENTWaller, J.1. The appellant took a contract from the Forest Department. He had to pay the lease amount in four instalments and defaulted on the second, His property was then sold under Section 66. Forest Act. It is now argued that the decision in Secretary of State v. Abdul Rahiman [1912] 24 M. L. J. 426 is in favour of the appellant. I think that the lower appellate Court was right in distinguishing that case on the ground that there the contract had been cancelled by Government before action was taken under Section 66, Forest Act. I may add with great respect that it seems to me at least arguable further, that the learned Judges took too restricted a view of the words 'on account of forest produce.' The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs (two sets)....
Natesa Pathar Vs. Ganapathi Subba Pathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ68
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the sons of the 4th defendant have brought this suit for partition of their 4|5ths share of the plaint property on the ground that their shares in it were not conveyed to the 1st defendant under the sale in execution of the decree against their father. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit and the 1st defendant's appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court was dismissed. He preferred a second appeal to the High Court and it was dismissed by Spencer, J., and he has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of that learned Judge. The Lower Courts as well as Spencer, J., have on a consideration of the evidence in the case held that the execution and sale did not convey to the appellant the interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property and that what was bought by him was only the share of the 4th defendant.2. The contention of Mr. Varadachariar for the appellant is that where the sale papers are unambiguous the Court should giv...
Sreemath Raja Yarlagadda Ankineedu Prasad Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ332
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff (decree-holder) against the order passed on his E.P. No. 218 of 1922 in S. S. No. 26 of 1908 on the file of the Deputy Collector of Bandar. There is no appearance for the respondent (judgment-debtor) in this appeal. The facts are briefly as follows: S.S. No. 26 of 1908 was filed for the recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908, and a decree was passed in plaintiff's favour on 16th September, 1910. The present E.P. No. 218 of 1922 was filed on 12th September, 1922 for the execution of that decree by attachment and sale of the defendant's immoveable property. This petition was dismissed by the Revenue Court on 17th May, 1923 as no fresh petition for the appointment of a guardian for the minor defendant was filed. Against that order of dismissal an appeal was preferred to the District Court. The learned District Judge rightly held that the order of dismissal passed by the exec...
C. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ355
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council in the following circumstances;--He made, sales to customers in Salem and Coimbatore of a quantity amounting in all to 100 marcs of gold thread. The gold thread was despatched to the purchasers from a place called Nellikuppam in South Arcot and in transit it was seized by the Inspector of Customs, Cuddalore Circle, who alleged that the gold thread had been smuggled into British India and had not paid duty. The case for the plaintiff was that he had bought it ultimately through a sub-purchaser from Messrs. Parry & Co., who had imported it from France and paid duty upon it. The Collector of Customs, to whom an appeal lay from the District Officer, or who, rather had to affirm or disaffirm the action of the District Officer, made an order On the 30th July, 1924 whereby he confiscated the goods and ordered their sale. Thereupon there was an appeal to the Governor in Council...
Natesa Pather Vs. Ganapathi Subba Pathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad311
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of the 4th defendant, have brought this suit for partition of their 4/5ths share of the plaint property on the ground that their shares in it were not conveyed to the 1st defendant under the sale in execution of the decree against their father. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit and the 1st defendant's appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court was dismissed. He preferred a second appeal to the High Court and it was dismissed by Spencer, J., and he has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of that learned Judge. The lower Courts, as well as Spencer, J., have on a consideration of the evidence in the case held that the execution and sale did not convey to the appellant the interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property and that what was bought by him was only the share of the 4th defendant.2. The contention of Mr. Varadachariar for the appellant is that where the sale papers are unambiguous the Court should ...
(Velivela) Venkata Sivayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad442
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narasapur of an offence under Section 317 (a) of the District Municipalities Act, Madras Act V of 1920, namely, with commencing the reconstruction of a building without the permission of the Chairman, Municipal Council, Palacole, and was sentenced to pay a fine Rs. 50. In appeal the learned Joint Magistrate altered the conviction to one under Section 317 (c) of the Act, which renders punishable the carrying on or completion of a construction or reconstruction in contravention of any provision contained in the Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder, or of any direction or requisition lawfully given, or made and reduced the fine to Rs. 25.2. It is now argued that the learned Joint Magistrate has failed to apply the definition of 'reconstruction' which is contained in Section 3 (24) of the Act. In cases where reconstruction is partial only, that definition requires that the re-erection to constitu...
Upadrashta Latchayya Vs. Gudaparti Sitamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1144; 103Ind.Cas.384
Waller, J.1. It is argued that even though the deed itself might be rectified, the decree passed upon it cannot be rectified. This contention cannot be upheld vide Bepin Krishna Ray v. Jogeshwar Ray A. I. R. 1921 Cal. 720 and Venkatarama Iyer v. Elumalai Naiker A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 442 The other argument, that there is no finding of mutual mistake is not supported by the judgments of the Courts below.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Valivela Venkata Sivayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.375
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Narasapur of an offence under Section 317(a) of the District Municipalities Act, Madras Act V of 1920, namely, with commencing the re-construction of a building without the permission of the Chairman, Municipal Council, Palacole, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. In appeal, the learned Joint Magistrate altered the conviction to one under Section 317(c) of the Act, which renders punishable the carrying on or completion of a construction in contravention of any lawful order, or in breach of any provision contained in the Act or of any rule or bye law made thereunder, or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made, and reduced the fine to Rs. 26.2. It is now argued that the learned Joint Magistrate has failed to apply the definition of 're-construction' which is contained in Section 3(24) of the Act. In cases where reconstruction is partial only, that definition requires that the 're-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »