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.
In Re: K.R. Uppasini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ179
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate of criminal breach of trust by an agent under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution evidence shows that, under the name of Mr. V. Joshi, the petitioner in April, 1925, started a betting businees in Madras which he called the Star Sports Club. According to Rule 4 of the rules which he issued as Secretary an object--and undoubtedly the principal object--of the club was to provide facilities to constituents to back horses at various race meetings in India. He was to remit sums furnished for this purpose to some person present at the race meeting, who would put them on the selected horses, either through the totalizator or otherwise. In point of fact, it is admitted that no such sums were remitted, but it was the petitioner's practice to carry on an independent business as bookmaker, receiving bets and paying winnings according to the odds ...
Mosafkanni Ravuthar and ors. Vs. Doraisami Alias Gauri Vallabha thevar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ30
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is accepted. The finding is to the effect that the wet lands are divided between the several sharers and each sharer is in enjoyment of his specific share. As to the dry lands, half of them are enjoyed by the sharers as tenants-in-common by being held through permanent lessees and the other half similarly through occupancy tenants. The sharers are not in physical possession of the dry lands and practically there is little chance of their getting into physical possession. They have to collect the rent and divide it according to their respective shares. It is also clear that at the time of the inam register, Ex. IV, that is in 1864, all the lands were undivided and were being held jointly. The poruppu for the Chatram portion must have been paid jointly by all the sharers though it was separated from that due on the Dharmasanam portion. The question that now arises is, what is the principle of law applicable to the liabilities of the...
(Akula) Venkanna Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad503
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The complainant preferred a complaint of voluntarily causing simple hurt under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, and being absent on an occasion when the case was taken up, the Sub-Magistrate dismissed it under Section 259 Criminal Procedure Code, and discharged the accused. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a fresh complaint in the same terms with an application that it should be restored to file and the Sub-Magistrate deeming the explanation for his absence to be satisfactory, took the case on file again and eventually convicted the accused. The contention in this Criminal Revision Case is that he was incompetent to restore the case after having passed an order of discharge under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. This point was not taken either in the trial Court or in appeal and it admittedly does not affect the merits of the conviction, nor I think has it any basis in law. It has been held in the Full Bench case Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Goundan [1906] ...
Musafkanni Ravuthar and ors. Vs. Doraisingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad931
Ramesam, J.1. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is accepted. The finding is to the effect that the wet lands are divided between the several sharers and each sharer is in enjoyment of his specific share. As to the dry lands, half of them are enjoyed by the sharers as tenants-in-common by being held through permanent lessees and the other half similarly through occupancy tenants. The sharers are not in physical possession of the dry lands and practically there is little chance of their getting into physical possession. They have to collect the rent and divide it according to their respective shares. It is also clear that at the time of the inam register, Ex. IV, that is, in 1864, all the lands were undivided and were being held jointly. The poruppu for the chatram portion must have been paid jointly by all the sharers though it was separated from the dues on the dharmsanam portion. The question that now arises is what is the principle of law applicable to the liabilities of the share...
In Re: Akula Venkana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.384
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The complainant preferred a complaint of voluntarily causing simple hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and being absent on the occasion when the case was taken up, the Sub-Magistrate dismissed it under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code, and discharged the accused. Subsequently, the complainant filed a fresh complaint in the same terms with an application that it should be restored to file and the Sub-Magistrate deeming the explanation for his absence to be satisfactory took the case on file again and eventually convicted the accused. The contention in this criminal revision case is that he was incompetent so to restore the case after having passed an order of discharge under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. This point was not taken either in the trial Court or in appeal and it admittedly does not affect the merits of the conviction; nor, I think, has it any basis in law. It has been held in the Full Bench case, Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 29 ...
Appasa Rowther and ors. Vs. Muhamad Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad435
Curgenven, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is presented against an order by the Additional District Munsif of Palghat refusing to amend the decree in O. S. No. 16 of 1920 on his file. The suit was on a mortgage; a preliminary decree was passed on 6th November 1920 and the final decree on 10th January 1922. The original decree-holders assigned the decree and the assignee applied for the sale of the mortgaged property. It was then objected by the 6th defendant that the survey number relating to the property was erroneous and the property was therefore misdescribed. The Court accepting this contention dismissed the application for sale. Then, on 28th July 1923 the decree-holders, including the assignee, petitioned to have the schedules attached to the final decree and also to the plaint, in which the same error occurred, amended. The Additional District Munsif, in dismissing the application, has assigned two reasons; firstly that it was due to the gross negligence of the decree-holders ...
Munisami Naicken Vs. Vedachala Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad23; 101Ind.Cas.386
1. This case raises three points: first, as to whether the plaintiff can sue, that is to say, he deriving title from the widow in the case, would she have been able to sue in the position that was created by the document Ex. A? For the moment I would describe it simpliciter as the document. There is ample authority for the proposition that in this country, and indeed in a certain class of cases in England where a contract is made between A and B for the benefit of C, C is entitled to sue the defaulting party. It is unnecessary to cite authorities, but the principle is finally established for this country by the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begum [1910] 82 All. 410. It is moreover quite clear that one must in applying the principles of the English Common law and not rules of the nature of procedure, remember one is applying them to a totally different subject-matter, to a state of things which is created not entirely by the acts of the parties, but by...
Thushtu Balakrishna Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. V. Krishnamurthi Aiya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad416; (1927)52MLJ182
Odgers, J.1. The facts are set out in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading and I therefore need not repeat them here.2. The first point taken in this appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore is that the decree is merely declaratory and therefore not executable in that no act is to be done Cf. Syatna Charan v. Satya Prasad (1922) 36 CLJ 101. The decree says: That this Court doth order and direct that the 1st defendant shall be liable to make good to the temple Rs. 2,774 and odd and that failing recovery thereof from him defendants 6 and 7 be liable to make good the deficiency and also Rs. 338 and the 7th defendant liable to make good to the temple Rs. 60.3. It is to be observed that the words 'order and direct' appear in the decree but some argument has ranged round the words 'shall be liable to make good'. The suit was a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, and prayed inter alia that the defendants be directed to re...
Thushtu Balakrishna Chettiar and ors. Vs. V. Krishnamurthi Iyer and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.841
Odgers, J.1. The facts are set out in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading and I, therefore, need not repeat them here.2. The first point taken in this appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore is that the decree is merely declaratory and, therefore, not executable in that no act is to be done [of Syama Charan Das v. Satya Prosad Choudhury : AIR1923Cal252 .] The decree says 'that this Court doth order and direct that the 1st defendant shall be liable to make good to the temple Rs. 2,774 and odd and that failing recovery thereof from him, defendants Nos. 6 and 7 be liable to make good the deficiency and also Rs. 338 and the 7th defendant liable to make good to the temple Rs. 60.' It is to be observed that the words 'order and direct' appear in the decree but some argument has ranged round the words shall be liable to make good.' The suit was a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, and prayed inter alia that the defenda...
Somasundaram Mudaliar and ors. Vs. K.S. Rajappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad369; (1927)52MLJ140
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for enforcing the registration of a portion of a certain document. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The District Judge decreed it. The defendants appeal.2. The document in question is a partition-deed between the plaintiff and the first defendant who are brothers. The whole document except paragraph 8 was registered. The suit relates only to paragraph 8. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Paragraph 8 of the, document runs thus: Since we have allowed our aunt, Kuppanni to enjoy for her maintenance 41 acres 31 cents of land purchased by our natural guardian and grandmother Muthanni in her name in Singalanthi, Pandi and other villages in the Thiruthuraipundi Taluk, we shall divide the said property between ourselves in moieties after her death.3. Befbre I discuss the question of law I will clear up the further facts necessary for deciding this case. The plaint after alleging that the grandmother of the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »