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: Rangasami Kanda Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1926
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ694
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. In this case the petitioner was convicted of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. In appeal the conviction was altered into one under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, but the sentence was maintained. It is contended that, having altered the finding from a more to a less grave offence, the Appellate Court should have reduced the sentence, and that the omission to do so amounts to having enhanced it.2. It is well-enough settled [see Paramasiva Pillai, v. Emperor ILR (1906) M 48, Ramanujam Pillai v. Emperor Weir, Vol. II, p. 487, In re Somasundaram Pillai (1908) 3 MLT 312, Prola Narasimham v. Emperor (1911) 2 MWN 97, Emperor v. Varadan (1910) 8 MLT 117] that it is not open to an Appellate Court, when setting aside the conviction of one of two or more offences, to confirm the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The reason is that, when (to take the simplest cas...
Sundarammal Vs. Sundara Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad560
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows: Two persons named Lakshmanan Chetty, and Muthiah Chetty a minor represented by his next friend, obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the foot of a mortgage in O. S. No. 14 of 1919. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original mortgagor; Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 were subsequent purchasers of the equity of redemption of separate portions of the mortgage properties. Defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 also claim right of subrogation to some prior mortgages which they had discharged. This right was recognized in the preliminary decree which directed sale of the items purchased by them subject to the prior mortgage. An appeal against this direction was filed by the mortgagor. After the appeal was filed the rights of the decree-holders were assigned by a deed (Ex. A) dated 26th July 1920, and the assignee applied to have his name brought on record as the 3rd appellant ( Ex. 0, dated 5th of August 1921). The order o...
(Kruttiventi) Surappa and ors. Vs. (Kuruttiventi) Sundaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad176
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a reversioner for declaring that the alleged adoption of the defendant 2 is not true and valid and that his alienations are not binding on him beyond the lifetime of defendant 1. The last male owner Krishna Rao died on 20th April 1913. Defendant 1 is his widow. Before Krishna Rao's death he executed Ex 1 (dated 16th December 1912) described in the Court below as an affiliation deed. The Subordinate Judge held that Ex. 1 operates as an affiliation deed and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.2. If the defendant 2 had not been validly adopted, he can succeed only on the footing that Ex. 1 was a gift or settlement or a will. The Subordinate Judge says:A Hindu can affiliate a son instead of actually adopting him, and give him his properties. It is no doubt true that unlike an adoption, mere affiliation will not create a right in the person affiliated to the properties of the person who affiliates. But in Ex. 1 we see words distinctly ...
Kathari Ramachandra Raju (Died) and ors. Vs. Dandu Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad441; 101Ind.Cas.18; (1927)52MLJ330
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the petitioners whose application for leave to sue in forma pauperis has been rejected by the District Munsif under Order 33, Rule 5(d) of the C.C.P.2.A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that no revision petition lies under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against such an order. The wording of Section 115 of the C.P.C. is in my opinion comprehensive enough to cover a case of this kind, and if authority is needed, it is clear that there have been a number of cases decided by this Court in revision which show that such petitions have been entertained as sustainable under Section 115 without any demur. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Rathnam Pillai v. Pappa Pillai (1902) 13 MLJ 292 (FB). is a clear authority showing that the High Court interfered with a similar order passed by the Lower Court in revision, when it found that the order showed an illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Lower Co...
Karuppanna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1112
Wallace, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Trichnopoly for the offence of murder and sentenced to death. The prosecution case shortly was that he murdered his brother on the night of 1st April 1926. The brother was sleeping on the inner pial of the house that night and the mother and the accused were sleeping in the outerpial. The prosecution case is that about midnight the accused attacked the deceased with an arival. The neighbours were aroused by the cry of the deceased and several of them turned up and saw the mother assisting the deceased from the house and the accused according to one or two of them, was sitting on the pial with an arival in his hand. Certain evidence is put in before the lower Court that the mother P. W. 6 herself had at one stage in the proceedings said that she saw the accused attacked the deceased with an arival, and the learned Judge's judgment, it appears to us, is based mainly upon her statement. That stateme...
In Re: Karuppana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.359
1. The accused in this case has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly for the offence of murder and sentenced to death. The prosecution case shortly was that he murdered his brother on the night of 1st April, 1926. The brother was sleeping on the inner pial of the house that night and the mother and the accused were sleeping in the outer pial. The prosecution case is that about midnight the accused attacked the deceased with an aruval. The neighbours were roused by the cry of the deceased and several of them turned up and saw the mother assisting the deceased from the house and the accused according to one or two of them, was sitting on the pial with an aruval in his hand. Certain evidence is put in before the lower Court that the mother, P.W. No. 6, herself had at one stage in the proceedings said that she saw the accused attacked the deceased with an aruval, and the learned Judge's judgment, it appears to us, is based mainly upon her statement. That statement w...
Mamillapalli Kotappa and ors. Vs. Pamidipati Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ532
Wallace, J.1. I agree generally with the judgment just read by my learned brother. I only wish to add some remarks chiefly with reference to my judgment in Parvati Ammal v. Venkatarama Aiyar : AIR1925Mad80 . In that judgment I have dealt with most of the cases which have been cited before us. It has been strongly and with reason relied upon by the appellant in this case, but has also been quoted in support of a view which has never been expressed therein, though I must now concede that the main position which I took up there requires reconsideration. In that case the question arose of the rights of a puisne mortgagee who had paid up an execution sale amount for which the property had been brought to sale on a prior mortgagee's decree. The proposition for decision in that case I state at p. 318: The point for decision is whether, when she paid it off, she is to be subrogated to it (the charge which she paid off), in its original form as a mortgage charge, or to ft in the form into which...
O.A.O.K. Latchmanan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ742
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras and the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes to call up their orders passed in the matter of Rao Bahadur Latchmanan Chettiar declaring him to be disqualified as a candidate at the election about to be held to select a councillor for the 29th Division of this City. Our interference is invoked on the ground that both these officers acted without jurisdiction and that therefore their orders should be quashed. In such a matter we act not under statute but under the inherent powers which devolve upon us from the old Supreme Court of Madras. We therefore stand with regard to prerogative writs in the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England and in our opinion we ought to follow the rules laid down by that Court in the decided English cases as to the scope and limitation of its jurisdiction. The facts were stated by us in our decision in ...
T. Ekambara Naicker and anr. Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad22
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Late in the afternoon of Wednesday, last week, the 29th September, Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar presented this petition urgently and moved for a rule nisi. The application is by two voters in the Municipal Electorate of the Royapettah or the 29th Division of Madras City and is for a mandatory order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the Commissioner of the City Corporation restraining him from holding the election of the Divisional Councillor for that division otherwise than in conformity with the rules relating thereto. It was stated that the election had been announced to be held on the following day the 30th September and the application was moved and argued ex parte for an order nisi.2. Having regard to the short time within which I had to make up my mind and the late stage at which the application was moved and what may be regarded as the serious consequences of stopping an election announced to be held on the following day, I should have...
Meenakanti Rosayya and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad500
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The fact that the President of the Bench was among those who thought the accused were not guilty was no reason why, on their being found guilty by a majority of the Bench, he should not vote on the question of sentence. That being so, his casting vote settled the sentences at Rs. 25 instead of Rs. 10 and so far as I can see the procedure is doing so was perfectly legal. The criminal revision petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »