Chennai Court October 1927 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.
Mamidapalli Sattayya and ors. Vs. Sankara Kutumbara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad859; 108Ind.Cas.904
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nidadavole. The contention of Mr. Suryanarayana is that the Magistrate having found that there was no likelihood of a breach of peace, he had no jurisdiction to pass an order that the lands under dispute should continue in the custody and management of the receiver. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed under Section 145, Criminal P.C., is derived from the fact that he is satisfied that there is a likelihood of a. breach of peace and the moment it is found that there is no likelihood of a. breach of peace, his jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 ceases, and the order for attachment is only pending the enquiry under Section 145, and when the proceedings are dropped because of the absence of a likelihood of a breach of peace the order for attachment automatically comes to an end. In this case after finding that there was no likelihood of a breach of peace the Magistrate following:...
K. Venkataraya Prabhu Vs. Vasudeva Prabhu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad897; 108Ind.Cas.294
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge dismissing the petitioner's application to execute the decree passed in O.S. No. 78 of 1914. The facts leading up to the execution application are shortly these. Upendra Prabhu and Ramakrishna Prabhu were brothers and succeeded to certain properties as reversioners. O.S. No. 78 of 1914 was filed by Ramakrishna Prabbu against Upendra Prabhu for partition and a compromise decree was passed. By the compromise decree pertain properties were set apart for the performance of religious trusts and Schedules A to D relate to the trust and its performance. Schedule A refers to the immoveable properties set apart for the trust, Schedule B. refers to the moveables, Schedule C, refers to the performance of the trust and the various acts to be done by the trustee and Schedule D refers to the properties which are made the security for the due performance of the trusts by the trustee. Upendra Prauhu the elder brother was constituted...
Rex S. Arthur, Profession Tax Inspector, Ramnad Taluq Board Vs. Appavu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.411
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application by the Profession-tax Inspector, Ramnad Taluq Board to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate quashing the conviction of the respondent under Section 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The Sub Magistrate who heard the case convicted the respondent for not taking out a license as required by the Madras Local Boards Act and found him guilty under Section 207 and sentenced him to pay a fine. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on appeal held that the complaint was lodged more than three months after the commission of the offence and, therefore, was barred under Section 222 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The offence complained of was the failure of the respondent to take out license for having a potter's kiln. His not taking out a license as required by Section 193, no doubt constitutes an offence under the Act. Section 207 is the penal section which provides for punishment. Section 222 has no application to the present case. That section a...
Panchapakesa Ayyar Vs. Ayyaswami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.510
Reilly, J.1. In my opinion it was open to the defendants under proviso (3) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prove that the promissory note was executed and delivered only as security for the payment of future instalments to the chit fund. Compare Sundram Chetty v. Damodaram Chetty 84 Ind. Cas. 146 : (1924) M.W.N. 529 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 850. There is evidence that the note was executed and delivered only as such security. The endorsement regarding the payment of Rs. 130 is not necessarily inconsistent with the defendant's a case. I see no sufficient reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Batcha Chinna Venkatrayudu and ors. Vs. the Maharaja of Pithapuram and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ138
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Cocanada dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner. The Divisional Officer held that Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., does not apply to execution proceedings under the Estates Land Act. Under Section 192 the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable excepting a few to proceedings under the Estates Land Act, and there is no express provision which exempts Order 21 from applying to proceedings in execution of rent decrees. In the absence of specific provisions to the effect that a claim petition is not to be entertained by a Revenue Court I am not prepared to hold that an application under Order 21, Rule 58 cannot be made to the Revenue Court. It is not contended for the respondent that the rent decree in this case is in the nature of a mortgage decree. No doubt a claim petition is not competent when a mortgage decree is being executed.2. The petitioner had a mortgage right ...
Muniswami Mudali and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ154
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Vellore. The order is the petition will be recorded.' This is no order at all. Such an order should not have been passed on any petition. The District Munsif should have either allowed the petition or dismissed it. The order is therefore set aside and he is directed to hear the petition on the merits and dispose of it.2. Costs of this application will abide the result....
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Palaniyandi Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ261
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts are briefly these; the accused encroached on Road No. 18 within the limits of Melattoor V. Sethi Resta in the District Board, Tanjore, and notice was served upon him under Section 159 (1) of the Local Boards Act, to vacate the encroachments. This was disobeyed and he was convicted by the Sub Magistrate of Papanasam in C.C. No. 240 of 1925. He preferred no appeal against this conviction. He did not, however, remove the encroachment; and, as the offence continued, the present case was brought against him under Section 159 (1) and 207 (2) of the Madras Local Boards Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam found him guilty and fined him Rs. 61. This conviction was set aside on appeal. This present appeal has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused by the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam.2. P.W. 2, the Local Fund road maistry, deposed that the encroachment in question lies outside the line of avenue trees on the road an...
Borojo Charchi Vs. Odhikari Basudebo Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad152
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge reversing the decision of the District Munsif on an application to execute the decree passed in O.S. 1215 of 1908 which was filed on 11th January 1924. The facts are: the decree-holder in O.S. 1215 of 1903 filed an application (157/13) to execute his decree and obtained satisfaction of the decree by the sale of the properties which were charged for the decree. The auction-purchaser, according to the statement of account we find in the judgment, got possession, cultivated the land some time bat was dispossessed by a third person who claimed a title to the properties. We may state here that the suit was not on a mortgage but that there was a consent decree, the defendant having given these properties as a security for the decree amount. Finding that he was dispossessed the purchaser filed a suit to establish his title to the property but was unsuccessful. As he could not get possession the purchaser ...
Secretary of State Vs. S. Rangaswami and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad198
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry dismissing a suit by the Secretary of State for a sum of money said to be due by the respondent to the petitioner. The main contention urged by Mr. Venkataramana Rao, the learned Government Pleader, is that the respondent did not pay the freight for the coal supplied and the petitioner is entitled to recover it from the respondent. The facts are, the respondents Ranga-swami & Co. Madras, entered into a contract with the Executive Engineer of Godaveri for the supply of a certain quantity of coal. The coal was consigned from a colliery in Bengal and the contract was that the coal should be supplied free on rails at Rajahmundry. Two consignments of coal were received under freight system under which the consignee was to pay the freight. No freight was paid at the time the coal was taken delivery of, but after some months the railway administration wrote to the Government of Madras to pay the...
Periathambi Nayinar Vs. Gundhunada Nayinar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad360
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Arni disallowing the application for execution by the transferee-decree-holder. The decree-holder was an insolvent and he transferred the decree after insolvency and after his property had vested in the Official Receiver. The application for execution by the petitioner was disallowed by the District Munsif. On appeal the District Judge of North Arcot held that in certain circumstances such a transfer might be valid if it was bona fide and for consideration and set aside the order of the lower Court and remanded the case for disposal on the merits after recording a finding on the point as to whether the transfer was for consideration or not. The District Munsif has found that the transfer had no consideration. It is contended for the (petitioner that the Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of consideration at the instance of the Official Receiver, for the Official Receiver was no party to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »