Chennai Court November 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.
Chellasami Konar Vs. Korusalsangama Nayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.821
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition has applied to this Court for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dismissing an election petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the election of the respondent as a member of the Taluk Board of Sivakasi to represent the Sattur circle.2. The learned Advocate General who appeared for the petitioner argued that having regard to the grounds of the petition this 'Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and set aside the order. It has been held in this Court in a number of cases that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in proper cases. But I do not propose to discuss the question in what cases this Court would or should interfere in revision. It may generally be stated that in cases of gross miscarriage of justice this. Court, as the Court of supervision would have the requisite power. There can also be no doubt that though the statutory tribunal to give the fin...
A.L.P.R. Periakaruppan Chetti Vs. R.M.P.R. Arunachalam Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad676; 102Ind.Cas.290
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The 2nd defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is an attaching creditor who obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant and attached the 2nd defendant's interest in the house and ground now in dispute, alleging that the property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant is entitled to a half share therein. The plaintiff's case is that the property is his self-acquisition and that the 2nd defendant has no interest. He filed a claim which was disallowed and hence the suit out of which this appeal arises.2. The plaintiff adopted the 2nd defendant in the year 1914 when he was about 10 years old. The finding of the Subordinate Judge which is amply supported by the evidence is that the only property which the plaintiff and his brothers got from their father was a thatched house and that all the other properties to which the plaintiff is now entitled are h...
Bapatla Venkata Rao Vs. Bapatla Venkata Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.300
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit for partition by the Subordinate Judge, The suit relates to a family of which the common ancestor, as is now not disputed, was Kanchiraju. He was great grandfather of the plaintiff and great-great-grandfather of defendant No. 1. At the trial it was denied by defendant No. 1, or rather by defendant No. 2 as defendant No. 1, his father, died a few days after the suit was instituted, that the plaintiff and his two brothers defendants Nos. 5 and 6 belonged to the family at all. The plaintiffs case is that his father, Suryanarayana, was adopted by Krishnayya I, the son of Kanchiraju I. The Sub-ordinate Judge has found in favour of the ] adoption, and that is not now disputed: 'before us. '.2. It is denied in defendant No. 1's written statement that the property concerned is joint family property at all, and it is alleged that it was acquired by defendant No. 1's grandfather Kanchiraju II. But it appears from Ex. A a statem...
In Re: Lakshmana Koundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ143
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly with regard to a conviction by the Subordinate Magistrate of Karur of one Lakshmann Koundan of Kolathupailayam.2. The facts found are that he was the owner of a buffalo which was impounded and it is also proved that it was rescued by him after opening a door by shipping the chain over the lock. There can be no doubt that the act amounted to a clear offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The Sub-Magistrate, however, would appear to have further convicted the accused under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. I am satisfied that the conviction under both these latter sections was wrong. The District Magistrate in his reference refers to the ruling reported in Weir's Criminal Rulings, Vol. I at page 716. Though it does appear to be a decision bearing on the point, there was no discussion in that judgment on the question whether if a person, albeit the owner of the catt...
Thokala Seshamma and anr. Vs. Yellatur Venkata Reddi, Minor, by Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ155
Curgenven, J.1. In taking up the question whether the 1st plaintiff was Swami Reddi's nearest reversioner or not, the learned District Judge says: Not to speak of the oral evidence, there is clear documentary evidenre in support of the plaintiff's case.2. Since he does not further allude to the oral evidence, I can only conclude that he bases his finding exclusively upon the documentary evidence as sufficient in itself. Of that evidence.3. I do net suppose that the learned District Judge considered that the holding of joint pattas, the entry in the Pouthi report, or the fact that 1st plaintiff and Swami Reddi each enjoyed part of the same survey numbers, went very far by themselves to prove that 1st plaintiff was nearest reversioner. He evidently relies upon the three documents, Exs. L, H and C. But in speaking of Ex. C, he makes the somewhat serious mistake of supposing that Venkanna to whom it relates is described as 'son of Chinna Narasanna,' whereon he bases his conclusion that Ach...
A. Narasimaiah Vs. Jawantharaj Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.110; (1927)52MLJ299
Wallace, J.1. This petition is against the decision of the District Judge of Chingleput in a matter of execution. The counter-petitioner is the transferee-decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 743 of 1920 on the file of the District Munsif of Poonamallee. In that suit which was on a promissory note the plaintiff obtained a decree that the first defendant in that suit do pay him the sum sued for from the estate of the late husband of the promisor. The present petitioner was the 3rd defendant in that suit and was impleaded as one of the heirs of the legal estate of the husband of the promisor. Plaintiff exonerated him in that suit and the suit was dismissed against him. The petitioner sued later on for possession of that estate and obtained a decree on 1st December 1923 for delivery of the estate. In the meantime.the-plaintiff in the Small Cause Suit transferred his decree to the present counter-petitioner who on 29th November 1923, that is, two days before the delivery to the petitioner, attached...
(Thayingoli) Valiya Kalyamni Vs. (Vayaredathil Parkum Thayingoli) Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad699
1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated as follows:2. The second defendant is the jenmi of the suit land. The 1st defendant has been holding it under a kanom dated 28th January 1909 (Ex. I) for 12 years. On the 5th January 1919 the 2nd defendant executed a melcharath in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. A, and the present suit is filed on its basis for redemption of the kanom. The 1st defendant pleaded that there is an agreement between him and the jenmi for a renewal of the kanom dated 19th December 1918, (Ex. III); and the kanom was actually renewed by a registered document Ex. IV dated 19th December 1920. It is pleaded that the plaintiff's melcharath was obtained with notice of the defendant's agreement for renewal.3. The District Munsif found that Ex. III was not a genuine document and decreed the plaintiff's suit. What he meant was that Ex. III was not executed on the date it bears; not that it was not executed by the jenmi.4. On appeal the District Ju...
Sundararajulu Naidu Vs. Narayanaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad813; 103Ind.Cas.825
JUDGEMENTSrinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. On this civil revision petition the decree-holder has applied to this Court to revise the order of the Small Cause Judge of Kumbakonam dismissing the decree-holder's petition for execution on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation.2. It has been argued by the learned vakil for the petitioner that there had been an execution application before the present one, namely E. P. No. 4095 of 1924 and that thereon after service of notice on the judgment-debtors an order was made by the Court directing execution of the decree. No doubt, when an application is made for execution of a decree and notice of the application is served on the judgment-debtors, they are bound to appear if for any reason they should regard themselves as entitled to contend that the decree of which execution is sought is not there or then executable. The executability of the decree being one of the matters to be considered by the Court, the judgment-debtors were bound to a...
Sundararaiulu Naidu Vs. Narayanaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.825
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. On this civil revision petition the decree-holder has applied to this Court to revise the order of the Small Cause Judge of Kumbakonam dismissing the decree-holder's petition for execution on the groan d that it was barred by the law of limitation.2. It has bean argued by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that there had been an execution application before the present one namely, E.P. No. 4095 of 1924 and that thereon after service of notice on the judgment-debtors an order was made by the Court directing execution of the decree. No doubt, when an application is made for execution of the decree and notice of the application is served on the judgment debtors, they are bound to appear if for any reason they should regard themselves as entitled to contend that the decree of which execution is sought is not there or then executable. The executability of the decree being one of the matters to be considered by the Court, the judgment-debtors were bound to appear an...
Thayingoly Valiya Kalyani Vs. Vayardathil Parakum Thayingoli Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.836
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated as follows: The 2nd defendant is the jenmi of the suit land. The Ist defendant has been holding it under a Kanom dated 28th January, 1909, Ex. I for 12 years. On the 5th January, 1919, the 2nd defendant executed a melcharth in favour of the plaintiff. Exhibit A and the present suit is filed on its basis for the redemption of the kanom. The 1st defendant pleaded that there is an agreement between him and the jenmi for a renewal of the kanom, dated the lath December, 1918, (Ex. III); and the kanom was actually renewed by a registered document Ex. II dated the 19th December, 1920. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs melcharth was obtained with notice of the defendant's agreement for renewal.2. The District Munsif found that Ex. III was not a genuine document and decreed the plaintiff's suit What he meant was that Ex. III was not executed on the date it bears; nor that it was not executed by the jenmi.3. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »