Chennai Court August 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.
K.P. Keshava Rao and ors. Vs. Nathravati Alias Yemunama and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.837
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O.S. No. 60 of 1920 on his file. The suit was to recover certain moveable and immoveable properties, for an account of the management of the plaint mentioned trust and for damages. The first defendant is the person against whom the claim was mainly made. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and hence the appeal to us by the plaintiff.2. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought in connection with a family trust created by the members of the family in the year 1867, under a registered document Ex. A. Under that document, they set apart the plaint properties for the performance of certain viniyogas mentioned in the document and of certain ceremonies in connection with the newly consecrated idol of Krishna Devaru, the family god. It was provided in that document, which was a document executed by four members who had acquired the properties themselves, that they and their descendant...
David Cutinha Vs. Salvadora Minazes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1202; (1926)51MLJ552
Odgers, J.1. This is a case which has taken some time to argue as it involves the question of forfeiture of a mulgeni lease. The lease is contained in a decree (Ex. A) of the 30th August, 1910. It sets out If there is necessity to alienate the said mulgeni right and the right of improvements, the same should be surrendered to plaintiff only on receiving from him the value of improvements fixed by four wise men, and it should not be alienated to any other parson by means of mortgage, sale, gift, etc., in any manner whatever. If the plaintiff refused in writing to take the property on paying the value of the improvements in that manner, the defendants may alienate the same to othtir persons. If in contravention to this, the defendants alienate their right, the said alienation and also the mulcpeni right should be cancelled and the property should come under plaintiff's possession.2. The alienations complained of consist of the grant of a mulgeni lease by some of the tenants and also the ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad272; (1927)52MLJ15
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the river Kaveri is navigable in the neighbourhood of Komarapalayam. This is a question of fact, and the learned District Judge has decided the question in the negative.2. The learned Government Pleader contends that on the finding that the river is navigable during ten months in the year, he is entitled to succeed, for there need notice enough water in the river for purposes of navigation throughout the year in order to make it navigable river. The question therefore is whether the term 'navigable' can be applied to a river which is navigable only during a substantial portion of the year. The Government Pleader relies upon American decisions and the observation of Lord Blackburn in Orr Ewing v. Colquhoun (1877) 2 AC 839 . for the position that it is sufficient if the river is navigable during a substantial portion of the year in order to make it a navigable river. This point has been specifically decided by a Bench of this Cou...
In Re: Venkatakrishna Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ121
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to stay poceedings in O.S. No. 76 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat pending the revision of a question of the Court-fee proper to the suit.2. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration of rights of way and drainage over a certain paramba and for a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to remove the fences, walls, etc., that have been built in defiance of the said rights.3. The plaintiffs sought to value their suit under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d), Courts Fees Act (VII of 1870)as if it were a simple suit for injunction. The. District Munsif has correctly pointed out that it is a suit for declaration and consequential relief falling under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) He has then held, applying the Madras provisio, that as the relief sought is with reference to immoveable property the valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immoveable property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (u)of the section....
In Re: E. Raman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ635
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to cancel the charge framed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tanjore in C.C. No. 2 of 1926 on the ground that the Sub-divisional Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offences in the aforesaid charge.2. The petitioner is charged firstly that at Coonoor he induced one Krishna Aiyar to write bogus telegrams, the offence under Sections 468 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and secondly, that he attempted to cheat one Palaniappa Chettiar by causing the dispatch of telegrams at Tanjore, the offence under Sections 420 and 511, Indian Penal Code.3. The facts on which the charge is based are that the petitioner at Coonoor gave the telegram for dispatch from Tanjore to one Jambulingam Asari. The petitioner contends that any attempt to cheat that he may have made was complete when he gave the telegrams to Jambulingam at Coonoor; and he did nothing afterwards in Tanjore which could be held to be an attempt.4. The Public Prosecutor in reply argues t...
In Re: (Changanti Chinna) Venkataswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad410
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the judgment and sentence of the Sessions Judge Anantapur, in C. A. No. 25 of 1925, convicting them of rioting.2. There is a clear finding in the Court of trial that they are guilty as charged, and I do not find that the common object was lost sight of in the lower Courts. The petitioners mainly rely upon a sentence in the appellate Judgment.the very witnesses that speak to the loss of jewels, speak to the entry into the house, and I cannot see my way to believe them in one part of the story when the other part has been found to be false.3. Here the Judge means that he neither believes the story of theft nor of the house-breaking. But he agrees with the lower Court in believing the story of rioting; and the Courts have shown sufficient reason for that belief. Hari Krishna v. Emperor [1915] 42 Cal. 784 merely lays down the elementary principle that false evidence should not be believed; it does not preclude a Court from exercising its po...
In Re: Venkitakrishna Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad348
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to stay proceedings in O. S. No. 76 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat pending the revision of a question of Court-fee proper to the suit.2. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration of rights of way and drainage over a certain paramba and for a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to remove the fences walls, etc., that have been built in defiance of the said rights.3. The plaintiffs sought to value their suit under Section 7, Clause (4) (d) (Court-fees Act 7 of 1870) as if it were a simple suit for injunction. The District Munsif has correctly pointed out that it is a suit for declaration, and consequential relief falling under Section 7 (4) (c). He has then held applying the Madras proviso, that as the relief sought is with reference to immovable property the valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property calculated in the manner provided for by para. 5 of the section. Accordingly plaintiffs...
Koragalva Vs. Jakri Beary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad261; (1927)52MLJ8
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for possession of property demised under a Mulgeni lease and for arrears of rent on account of the forfeiture of the Mulgeni chit. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the plaint property. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The clause against alienation in the Mulgeni chit, Ex. A, is as follows: If we find that we do not require this mulgeni we should obtain from you only the consideration for the improvements that may justly be effected by us and surrender the said land to you and we are not entitled to alienate the said land to any one else by mortgage, arwar, sale, gift, mulgeni, owdigeni, kayamgeni or by injunction, attachment, auction in any decree that may be passed against us in any Court or in any other manner whatever.2. The Mulgeni lease was in favour of three persons. One of the Mulgenidars alienated his share on 28th May, 1919 under Ex. I in favour of another Mulgenidar, that is his c...
In Re: Muthu Balu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1131; (1926)51MLJ490
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This batch of Criminal Revision cases has been referred by the Sessions Judge of Madura. The First Class Bench of Magistrates, Madura Town, convicted the persons concerned under Section 338 of the District Municipalities Act on the ground that they had not taken out licences under Section 249 of the same Act. Permission had been obtained under Section 250 and it was contended before the Bench of Magistrates and before us in revision that if such permission is obtained it is unnecessary to take out a licence under Section 249. Reliance is placed on the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Cr. R.C. No. 503 of 1925 Madura Municipality v. Muthu Balu Chetty : AIR1926Mad576 and the learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court on the ground that the convictions are illegal having regard to that ruling. The Magistrates found as a fact that the working of the rice mills in question is likely to be dangerous to human life or health or property and would therefore ...
S.K. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. A. Buran Sheriff and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad158; (1926)51MLJ680
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District judge of South Arcot adjudicating the appellant an insolvent. The facts prior to this adjudication are a little complicated, and the arguments founded thereon have taken some time to hear. The petitioning creditors filed two suits against the debtor, O.S. No. 548 of 1922 for gunny bags and O.S. No. 583 of 1922 for some amounts due in a partnership business. There was moreover a suit O.S. No. 580 of 1922 by the insolvent against these creditors for accounts due on an alleged partnership between him and them. This suit on the 7th of November, 1922 was dismissed and the other suits by the creditors were decreed. In May, 1923 the insolvent made some alienations of his properties and deposited the amount due in O.S. No. 548 into Court and the Court-sale was set aside. On the 23rd May, 1923, a petition for adjudication was filed in the District Munsif's Court. In the meantime appeals had been filed in O.S. No. 583 and O.S. No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »