Chennai Court September 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.
Gnanasigamani Nadar Vs. Vedamuthu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad308; (1927)52MLJ80
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner, an accused in R.C. No. 13 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate', Nanguneri, moves this Court to stay that inquiry in exercise of its power of superintendence under Section 167 of the Government or India Act, 1915. A criminal complaint has been filed against him for forgery with the permission of the Registrar. A fortnight later he filed a civil suit raising the issue of genuineness of the same document. His plea is for stay of the criminal inquiry pending his civil suit.2. These pleas are so frequently argued before this Court on first principles that it is advisable to consider what these principles are.3. The main principle is that this Court in the exercise of its function of superintendence should not retard the legal work of the Subordinate Courts. The necessity for dispatch is clearly laid down in Hem Chandra Ray v. Atal Behari Ray ILR (1908) C. 909 .4. A stay order is in essence bad, and only justifiable on special ...
Balla Mallayya Vs. Peddi Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad335; (1927)52MLJ90
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against an order or remand by the Lower Appellate Court and the preliminary point is taken that no appeal lies. The suit was for the restoration of a certain bund by the defendants, and the plaintiffs went to trial before the Munsif on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have the bunds?2. Whether the defendants were justified in removing the bund?3. To what relief?2. The Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, he found that the appeal could not be satisfactorily disposed of in the absence of certain findings. He therefore reversed the Munsif's decision, settled fresh issues and remanded the suit for a fresh disposal by the Munsif's Court.3. The appeal is brought under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (a) which allows an appeal from an order under Order 41, Rule 23. The latter is obviously inapplicable here and it is hardly contended that the suit was disposed of by the Munsif on a preliminary point. It is argued th...
(Dattada) Lakshminarasaraju and ors. Vs. Badaravada Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad474
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether the District Munsif was justified in disallowing costs to the appellants. The appellants succeeded before the District Munsif who refused him costs on the ground that there was hard swearing on both sides. He does not in the course of his judgment state whether the case was unnecessarily protracted by the appellants adducing irrelevant or false evidence. In para. 18 he says:It is likely that they would have been reaching the Punta S. F. Nos. 153 and-155 by passing over S. F. Nos. 156 and 157 and taking their carts and cattle thereby.2. He does not say that the evidence is false. In cases of this kind it is not proper to disallow costs to the successful party on the ground that some evidence adduced by that party is false. If the time of the Court is wasted by false or unnecessary evidence the Court would be justified in refusing costs to the successful party. The reason given by the District Munsif for disallowing costs is ...
Ramaswami and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad613
ORDERJackson, J.1. Two points are raised in this petition.(1) The Magistrate has not complied with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by questioning the accused generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution were examined; he should have put specific questions, This is not laid down in Section 342, and has not been the practice in this province so far as I am aware. Apparently another practice prevails in Patna [See In Re Emperor v. Barkat A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 447 and possibly in Calcutta [See Alimudi v. Emperor : AIR1925Cal361 . Considering that the general questioning is followed by the specific charge accused does not seem to be prejudiced by the Magistrate not discussing the case with him in specific detail before the charge; and there seems to be no practical objection to the Madras practice nor is it illegal.(2) Accused had no motive to compel the complainant to endorse the pronote. Accused can hardly have anticipated that complainant would admit pa...
Dalla Lakshminarasaraju and ors. Vs. Badaraveda Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.224
1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the District Munsif was justified in disallowing costs to the appellants. The appellants succeeded before the District Munsif who refused them costs on the ground that there was hard-swearing on both sides. He does not in the course of his, judgment state whether the case was unnecessarily protracted by the appellants adducing irrelevant or false evidence. In para. 18 he says:It is likely that they would have been reaching the Punta S.F. Nos. 153 and 155 passing over S.F. Nos. 156 and 157 and taking their carts and cattle thereby.2. He does not say that the evidence is false. In cases of this kind it is not proper to disallow costs to the successful party on the ground that some evidence adduced by that party is false. If the time of the Court is wasted by false or unnecessary evidence, the Court would be justified in refusing costs to the successful party. The reason given by the District Munsif for disallowing costs is not a satisfac...
In Re: Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.991
ORDERJackson, J.1. Two points are raised in this petition.2. The Magistrate has not complied with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, by questioning the accused generally on, the case after the witnesses for the prosecution were examined; he should have put specific questions. This is not laid down in Section 342 and has not been the practice in this Province so far as I am aware. Apparently another practice prevails in Patna: see in Duraga Ram v. Emperor 86 lnd. Cas. 156 : 6 P.L.T. 33 : A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 342 : 26 Cri. L.J. 716 and possibly in Calcutta, see Emperor v. Alimaddin Naskar : AIR1925Cal361 . Considering that the general questioning is followed by the specific charge, accused does not seem to be prejudiced by the Magistrate not discussing the case with him in specific detail before the charge; and there seems to be no practical objection to the Madras practice nor is it illegal.3. Accused had no motive to compel the complainant to endorse the pro-note. Accused ca...
Mahaboob Sir Prajuvanthu Sree Rajah Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savaji Aswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ804
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, a Zamindar, sued the legal representatives of a pleader who was employed to conduct certain summary suits, etc., in Bhima-varam for the plaintiff asking for a decree for about Rs. 1,800 being the amount due from the deceased pleader to the Zamindar on account of moneys received and not accounted for by him. Now the Subordinate Judge after calling for findings as to what suits the pleader had appeared in and when those were disposed of, held that only 22 suits were disposed of before the institution of this suit, and the most important point perhaps urged by Mr. Chenchiah for the appellant in L.P. Appeal from the judgment of my brother Phillips (who dismissed the second appeal) is the point of limitation. Mr. Chenchiah urges the following points: Firstly, that there was a general agency, that is to say, that the pleader was what is sometimes called a 'standing vakil' to the Zamindar and therefore his agency must be taken to have extended from 191...
(Alabin) Muhammad Aydross Cheria Koya Thangal Vs. Abdul Kadir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad411
1. The first question raised in this second appeal is whether the creation of wakf of property which is subject to mortgage is invalid according to Shafi Law. This point was not taken in the first Court. A number of issues were framed and the first issue runs thus:Whether the wakf deed in question is valid for any of the reasons stated in the plaint.2. In the plaint there is no mention of wakf being invalid by reason of its offending against Shafi Law. In the lower Court at the time of the argument the appellant submitted that there were a number of Arabic books of Shafi Law which would support his contention and that they should be referred to. The learned District Judge found that they were not books which were admittedly treated as authorities in this part of the country and he refused to look into them though, no doubt, the reason he gave was that they being books in Arabic neither he nor the vakils for the parties were able to read them and, therefore, he would not look into them....
Rachamadugu Rangiah and ors. Vs. Y.V. Appaji Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad163; (1926)51MLJ719
1. These appeals are against the order of the District Judge of Anantapur annulling certain transfers of property under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is contended for the appellants that Section 53 of the Act does not apply as the transfers of property were more than two years before the date of the adjudication of the insolvent. Ft is urged that the expression 'is adjudged insolvent' can only refer to the adjudication of the insolvent and not to the date of the presentation of the petition on which the adjudication was made. The question for determination is, does an application to set aside a voluntary transfer lie under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act if the transfer is more than two years from the date of the order of adjudication but within two years from the date of the presentation of the petition on which the adjudication was made? This point is covered by authority so far as our High Court is concerned.2. In Sankaranarayana Aiyar v. Alagiri Aiyar ...
R. Sivaramakrishnaier Vs. Sivakami Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad498
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. One Sivaraman Chetti, the son of the defendant, executed a trust deed appointing the defendant his mother as trustee and empowering her to manage his properties for a period of 15 years. Under the provisions of the deed, the defendant was to collect the income from the properties, pay maintenance to persons mentioned in the trust deed and hand over the balance to her son. The deed also provided that at the end of the term mentioned in it the defendant was to place Sivaraman Chetty in possession of the properties covered by it. On 14-9-1909, this trust dead was revoked by Sivaraman Chetty by a registered document and four days thereafter, the properties covered by the deed about 5 Velis of land were sold by him to the plaintiff. O. S. No. 366 of 1909 was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the properties on the strength of the sale deed executed to him. In that suit the present defendant contended amongst other things that Sivaraman Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »