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.
Perumal Naidu Vs. Marukrithammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad240
Krishnan, J.1. In this case one Ramasami Naidu brought a suit against one-Subbaraju Naidu and there was a compromise decree in it, by which, on Subbaraju Naidu paying into Court the sum of Rs. 2,000, Ramasami Naidu was to execute and register a sale-deed of his house in favour of Subbaraju Naidu and deliver possession of the property to him. The sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid into Court accordingly and thereupon Subbaraju Naidu applied to have the decree executed against Ramasami Naidu by. making, him execute and register a sale-deed and deliver it and give possession of the property to him. The District Munsif passed orders in favour of Subbaraju Naidu. Thereupon there was an appeal by Ramasami Naidu to the Sub-Court. It is not necessary to mention here the grounds of appeal as they are immaterial for the consideration of the present appeal.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed appeal. While the appeal was pending in the Sub-Court, an application was made by one Marukrithammal to be brought o...
H.M.A.N. Kirmany and Sons Vs. Aga Ali Akbar Khazviny Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad919
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. They are a firm of Mahomedan 'merchants known as H. M. A. N. Kirmany and Sons consisting of the father and his two sons. The defendants are the legal representatives of one Abbas Khazviny Sahib, who is now dead. Defendant 1 is his eldest son, defendant 2 is his widow and defendants 3 to 5 are his children by defendant 2. The suit was brought to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, which bears date 1st January 1920, for Rs. 3,166-12-9 and sums due on account of the further dealings up to the death of Abbas, which happened about the end of March 1920. The plaintiffs also allege an equitable mortgage by deposit of defendant's title-deeds and ask for a decree for sale. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the amount sued for; but he held that there was no valid equitable mortgage and' gave a mere money decree to be recovered' from the estate of Abbas in the hands of the defendants.2. The suit was filed on 21st July 1920. Defend...
Yennamani Ramanna Vs. Masunuri Venkatanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ52
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No. 2 of 1910 is not binding on him so far as the plaint property is concerned and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and for incidental reliefs. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour. The Subordinate Judge on appeal held that the decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1910 was binding upon the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The suit property was originally karnam service inam. It was enfranchised in favour of the plaintiff's paternal uncle and the title deed, Ex.D, was issued on 16th October, 1905. Defendants 1 and 2 had mortgaged the suit property with other property to the father of defendants 6 and 7 on 26th July, 1897. Defendants 6 and 7 brought O.S. No. 2 of 1910 on the mortgage and obtained a decree. They now have brought the property to sale. To O.S. No. 2 of 1910 the plaintiff's uncle an...
In Re: Samiullah Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ692
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioners have been fined Rs. 15 under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code for stealing fish in the course of the same transaction. They were all separately engaged in fishing and there is no evidence of common object or common intention, they were merely several poachers gathered in the same place at the same time. The question is whether under Section 239(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, they can lawfully be tried together.2. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has stated the difficulty in his third paragraph without solving it. Apparently the Prosecuting Inspector undertook to prove the common intention but he has not done so. Even if ten people go separately and steal grain from a granary there must be a presumption of common intention before they can be tried together. The accused certainly cannot be held responsible for the wording of the charge sheet.3. It cannot be said that these nineteen accused were not prejudiced by being tried together, nor had ...
In Re: Kunju Alias Vaithianathaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ800
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to twelve months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 417, 511 and 193, 511, Indian Penal Code.2. Petitioner owed money to the complainant and sent a registered and insured packet purporting to contain currency notes in settlement of the debt. The packet contained waste paper. Complainant sued petitioner for the debt, and petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge to receive the complainant's signed acknowledgment of the receipt of the packet as collateral evidence in proof of satisfaction.3. The petitioner was charged on 25th May, 1925 with attempting to cheat the complainant by inducing him to sign the acknowledgment for the receipt, the offence under Sections 417, 511 and on 22nd Aug., 1925 he was further charged that he caused circumstances to exist as detailed in the charge under Sections 417. 511 and made a document containing a false statement intending that such circumstance and false entry may app...
(Yennamani) Ramanna Vs. (Masunuri) Venkatanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad301
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the decree passed in O. S. No. 2 of 1910 is not binding on him so far as the plaint property is concerned and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and for incidental reliefs. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour. The Subordinate Judge on appeal held that the decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1910 was binding upon the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The suit property was originally karnam service inam. It was enfranchised in favour of the plaintiff's paternal uncle and the title-deed, Ex. D, was issued on 16th October 1905. Defendants 1 and 2 had mortgaged the suit property with other property to the father of Defendants 6 and 7 on 26th July 1897. Defendant 6 and 7 brought O. S. No. 2 of 1910 on the mortgage and obtained a decree. They now have brought the property to sale. To O. S. No. 2 of 1910 the plaintiff's uncle ...
In Re: Mayandi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ495
1. The appellant in this case has been convicted on the unanimous verdict of a Jury of offences under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. It was held that he broke into P.W. i's house and stole a ram therefrom. There is no misdirection in the charge and none is urged in the appeal petition. The only question for consideration is the question of sentence.2. The appellant is a member of a notified criminal tribe and has had two previous convictions, both subsequent to 1911. Prima facie therefore the sentence which ought to have been passed on him for a third conviction is under Section 23 of Act VI of 1924, transportation for life. Notice was served on him to show cause why the sentence imposed should not be enhanced. The Sessions Judge has given no reasons for not imposing the sentence of transportation for life. In a judgment of this Bench in Reference No. 17 of 1924 we held that, when an accused person was a member of a criminal...
Moideen Bibi Ammal by Agent Montana Sahib Vs. Rathnavelu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad69; (1926)51MLJ598
1. These Second Appeals are against the decision of the District Judge of Chingleput in a judgment which disposes of two appeals presented against the judgments in two original suits. The two suits were for recovery of melvaram due on land of which the defendant is a tenant for faslis 1328, 1329 and 1330. The plaintiff's case is that she is a muttawalli or trustee of the mosque institution and that defendant is her tenant on a part of the mosque property and as such is bound to pay melvaram. The defendant's contention was, first, that there is no mosque in existence, and second; that the plaintiff is not the de jure muttawalli or trustee and is therefore not entitled to claim rent from him. He also pleads that the matter of this appeal is res judicata.2. To take the last point first, on 3rd March, 1923 in a subsequent suit by the plaintiff against the defendant for rent for fasli 1331 the District Munsif pronounced a judgment in the plaintiff's absence, her pleader having no instructio...
P.M.A. Vellayappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Subramaniam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad137; (1926)51MLJ880
Devadoss, J.1. In this batch of second appeals the appellants are the ryots. The landholder brought suits under Section 77 of Act I of 1908, the Madras Estates Land Act, for arrears of rent for certain faslis. The appellants contended that the rent claimed in respect of cocoanut plantations was more than the rent they were bound to pay and that they were liable to pay only at the punja rate. Both the Lower Courts found against the contentions of the appellants. Two points are raised in these appeals. The first is, that the cocoanut plantation in respect of which the alleged higher rent is claimed is an improvement within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Act and the second is that the cocoanut plantations come within Clause (f) of the same sub-section. Both the Courts have found that the wells were dug at the cost of a few annas, and the digging of such wells was not an improvement within the meaning of Section 11(4). The evidence is that two coolies working till noon could dig a well...
Narayana Naicken Vs. Venkataswami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1190; (1926)51MLJ845
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the decree and execution proceedings in O.S. No. 32 of 1907 are not binding upon him and that his share of the family property did not pass to the vendee under the Court-sale and for possession and incidental reliefs. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. On appeal the District Judge of Coimbatore held that the plaintiff's suit was barred under Article 12 of the Limitation Act as regards items 1 to 4, and that the suit was not barred in respect of item No. 5, and remanded the suit for trial of the issues relating to item No. 5. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The facts are, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant. Items 1 to 4 were sold in execution of a money decree obtained against the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 327 of 1907 and were purchased by the 3rd defendant who took delivery of them in August, 1908. The 5th item was sold by the 1st defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »