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.
(Koliyote) Mommad Kutti and ors. Vs. Kizhakalagot Puthiyatath Kandi Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad962
Devadoss, J.1. Appeal No. 1543 of 1923: The only question in this case is whether the property in dispute is putravakasara property. The property was purchased in the names of three brothers by their father. That is the finding of both the lower Courts. The question is whether the property is putravakasam property in the circumstances of the case.2. Mr. Govinda Menon's contention is that inasmuch as the property was purchased by the father in the names of his sons, it must be understood that the father gifted the property to the sons. There is no evidence to support that contention and both the Courts on the evidence have found that the property was purchased by the father in the names of his three sons for the benefit of the family and there is evidence that the mother and the daughters as well a; the three sons lived together as on family. The next contention is that the gifts to a son or daughter in Malabai families would not enure for the benefit of the tavazhi or family, and relia...
In Re: Biswanath Das
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.365
1. The appellant in this case is a member of the Legislative Council and President of the Taluk Board, Chatrapur, and he has been convicted of criminal breach of trust in that he in his capacity as President of the Taluk Board dishonestly disposed of two sums of Rs. 1,385 and Rs. 725, being items of Taluk Board Funds, in violation of the Local Fund Rules under which he was entrusted with these moneys. The first sum was general Taluk Board Funds and the second was part of a provincial grant made by the Local Government to relieve water scarcity. It is admitted that for Rs. 1,385 the appellant drew contingent bills on 15th March, 1922, which were cashed at the Treasury next day, and that for Rs. 725 he drew contingent bills on loth March, 1922, which after objections were cashed on 23rd March, 1922. It is also not disputed that appellant was leaving the District for a few days on 15th March, 1922, and that he left instructions in writing Ex. H with his Head Clerk to pay over these sums w...
Andi Moopan Vs. Mohideen Meerat Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad226
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as huqdar of a mosque, for the melvaram paddy alleged to be due upon a land in the holding of the defendant. The plaintiff's case was, in brief, that the defendant and his predecessors-in-title had been paying something short of the correct amount of rent, and that the true rate was to be ascertained from an entry in the settlement register. Both the lower Courts have given effect to this contention.2. There is a preliminary objection that, under Section 102, Civil P. C. no second appeal lies because the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The answer which is, I think rightly made, is that by Art. 7 of Sch. II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act suits for the assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportionment of rent are excluded and that this suit falls within one or other of those classes. The plaintiff, in my view of the nature of his suit, claims to enhance the rent which ...
In Re: Indian Companies Act: and in the Matter of British Banking and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad271
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyanger, J.1. These are applications made in terms for directing the respective District Courts to enforce the payment orders made by the Bombay High Court in the matter of the winding up of the Company named in the cause title against contributories for various amounts. The certified copies of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court have now been put in.2. By virtue of Section 200 of the Companies Act an order, made by one Court, it is stated:shall be enforced in any place in British India other than that in which that Court is situate, by the Court that would have had jurisdiction in respect of such Company if the registered office of the Company had been situate at such other place and in the same manner in all respects as if such order had been made by the Court that is hereby required to enforce the same.3. The places where the orders are required to be enforced are the places in the districts mentioned respectively in the applications. If the Company had had re...
Kanyadhara Tatayya Vs. Kanyadhara Raghavayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad406
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a dispute between two rival adopted sons. The 1st defendant K. Ramayya had and has no children. It is the case of the 2nd defendant Tatayya who is the wife's sister's son of Ramayya that he was adopted in 1911 or 1912 by Ramayya. It is also now found that Ramayya adopted his brother's son Ragavayya the plaintiff in the present suit, in November 1919. It is obvious that, if the 2nd defendant was adopted in 1911 or 1912 the reason for the second adoption in 1919 was that for some reason the 1st defendant wanted to throw the first adoption overboard and create a rival adopted son. It is said his wife's relations, set up the adoption of the plaintiff in 1919. The 2nd defendant filed a suit on the 25th October 1920, against Ramayya to establish his adoption and to recover his share of the property.2. The plaint in that suit is now filed as Ex. F. The object of the suit was primarily the establishing of 2nd defendant's adoption. The relief for p...
Govindasami Pillai Vs. Ranaveerapandian Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1145
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the District Munsif ought to have stayed the suit when he was informed that the defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent. The contention of Mr. Desikan for the appellant is that the Court ought to have done so under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That section gives an option to the Court to continue a suit on such terms as the Court may impose. In this case, the Court did not impose any terms, nor did it direct the plaintiff to make the Official Receiver a party. When a party has been adjudicated an insolvent, the Court would be well advised in directing the other party to the suit to bring on record the Official Receiver as a party, and if the Official Receiver is unwilling to become a party, then the Court may proceed with the suit on such terms as it may impose upon the party wishing to proceed with the suit. This has not been done by the District Munsif. But I do not think that this has in any way vitiated the j...
In Re: Sennimalai Goundan Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.952
1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the offence of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. The prosecution case was that in the course of some drunken quarrel between the 1st and 2nd accused on one side and P. Ws. N03. 1 2, 4 and the deceased on the other, after some struggling and stonethrowing P. Ws. Nos. 2 and 4 ran along followed by the deceased and P, W. No, 1 and pursued by the two accused. The 1st accused made up on the deceased and stabbed him on the left side of the neck and also stabbed P. W. No. 1 when he attempted to expostulate. Both of these wounded men fell down and were subsequently conveyed to the hospital where the deceased died by 7-50 P. M., that is about 2 hours after he had been wounded.2. It appears from the medical evidence that the 1st accused himself had an oblique incised wound in front of his right thigh and two abrasions, and the prosecution has not attempted to account for this injury. Th...
Chitrala Ramiah Vs. Natukula Ramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad778; (1927)53MLJ265
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner, an accused in P.C. No. 4 of 1926 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Giddalore, applied for stay of that criminal proceeding during the pendency of O.S. No. 148 of 1926 which he subsequently instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Markapur. The Sub-Magistrate refused the application and hence this petition.2. Applications of this sort' are' sometimes argued as if there were an invariable rule that when the same issue is agitated both on the civil and the criminal side, the civil shall take precedence of the Criminal Court. This is not so. Each case must be considered on its own merits and the only general rule that can e adumbrated is that every Court should be left as far as possible to dispose of the cases on its file with the utmost expedition. This rule is in the interests not only of public administration but also of private persons involved in criminal proceedings for no one wishes to have a criminal charge kept hanging indef...
(Nagur) Pichai Rowther Vs. Rakkappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad528
Ramesam, J.1. In this second appeal 4th defendant is the appellant. It arises out of a suit for partition. Plaintiff' s father, 1st defendant, and the 3rd defendant's father were brothers. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is an alienee of two of the items in the plaint schedule, he having purchased the property under Ex. I, dated 28th February 1908, for Rs. 1,900. The Munsif dismissed the suit as one for partial partition. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit. The 4th defendant, therefore, appeals.2. The first point argued before me is whether the suit is bad for partial partition. The Subordinate Judge held that it is not open to an alienee to raise such a point. It is true that where a member of the family sues for partition and recovery of his share of an alienated item alone, such a point is not open to the alienee. But, I doubt if there is any general rule that an objection on the ground that the suit is one for partial p...
(Bolla) Venkata Reddy and ors. Vs. Gadi Linga Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1060
ORDERJackson, J.1. I see no reason to stay the criminal proceedings. Apparently, having failed to get sanction, the respondent is attempting to evade the provision of S.195, Criminal P. C., by presenting a complaint which stops short of the full story. It does not make clear, what is admitted. before me, that the intention to use contemplated in Section 474, I. P. C., fructified into an actual use, which attracts the provisions of Section 195, Criminal P. C.2. Such a complaint is best disposed of without delay. The petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »