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.
Pathuma Umma and ors. Vs. Aliyammakkanath Moideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.752
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.In this second appeal the defendants against whom a decree for ejectment has been made have appealed to this Court against the refusal of the lower Appellate Court to grant to them the value of certain improvements consisting in the construction of puaca building on the site in question.A preliminary objection to the appeal has been taken on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid in respect of the appeal. The appellants have paid the same Court fee in the second appeal as was paid in respeot of the plaint by the plaintiff-respondeat. The contention has been advanced that though in a suit for possession the Court-fee payable on a plaint may be as prescribed in a particular manner by the Court Fees Act, still when the appeal is by the defendant and when the claim by the defendant on appeal has reference the conpensation claimed by him but refused to be granted, the valuation of the appeal should logically be the value the...
In Re: Manager, Krishna Vinodha Sabha, C. Cunniah and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.636; (1928)54MLJ315
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The only point urged in this case is that the manager of the theatre who did not drive the bus through the prohibited streets should not have been convicted but that the man who actually drove the bus should have been convicted, as Section 76 (Act III of 1888) contemplates only the conviction of the person who actually contravenes the conditions in the license. I am unable to accept this contention. In this case the license was given for going in a bus with music for the purpose of distributing handbills and that license was given only for one day between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. The license was given to the petitioner. The mere fact that he asked his servant to drive the bus would not in any way exonerate him from the conditions of the license. It is not necessary that he should actually go in the bus himself in order to make him liable under Section 76. When the license obtained is for a particular purpose and the currency of the license is only for a short time, if the ...
Hanumantha Goundan and Four ors. Vs. T.V. Doraiswami Pillai and Five o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad380; (1928)54MLJ354
Phillips, J.1. The history of this case is somewhat complicated. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: One Bommi Achi, the mittadar of Thiriyalam, granted a permanent lease to defendants' predecessors in October, 1874, of the villages of Kudiyanakuppam, Kaveripattu and Ellapalle. The lease was to take effect from the 1st of July, 1875. Before that date the mittadar executed a usufructuary mortgage deed on the 27th February, 1875, Ex. E-l, in favour of Narayanaswami Reddiar, and this was executed in discharge of a prior hypothecation of 1865, Ex. A. As the result of these transactions the lessees under the permanent lease, Ex. D, were unable to obtain possession of all the three villages and only obtained possession of one, namely Kaveripattu. Subsequently, in 1876 the lessees obtained an assignment of the mortgage right over the village of Kudiyanakuppam and finally, at a later date, he obtained possession of Yellapalle, but not under the permanent lease. ...
In Re: Bontu Appala Naidu and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ714
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. In this revision petition a very interesting question is raised. The complainant died pending the enquiry into the case. The case before the Magistrate was a summons case, and the contention of Mr. Kameswara Rao is when the Magistrate was told that the complainant was dead he should have dismissed the complaint under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the non-appearance of the complainant. The Magistrate adjourned the case in order to enable the complainant's son to come on the record, and the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the Magistrate's action is not ultra vires as the section deals with complainants who are alive and not with complaiants who are dead. The relevant portion of Section 247 isif the complianant is absent, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.2. The Magistrate adjourned the case in ...
Rose Cracker Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad899
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Nellore with regard to an order made by the District Magistrate of Nellore confirming the order of maintenance made by the Justices of the Peace, Earns Gate, Kent, England. The Justices of the Peace made a provisional order for the maintenance of Mrs. Cracker against her husband at the rate of 2 a week, and the District Magistrate has varied the order by directing the husband to pay at the rate of 30 shillings a week. In making this order he has overlooked two things. One is that the maintenance is payable from the date of the order directing maintenance to be paid; i.e. from 31st May 1926. The Justices of the Peace made the order of maintenance on the ground that for some 8 weeks previous to 3 Lab May 1926 the husband did not maintain the wife and the District Magistrate has taken that period into consideration in directing the husband, Mr. Cracker, to pay maintenance at the rate of 30 shillings a week. This is wrong. Th...
In Re Rose Craker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.906
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Nellore with regard to an order made by the District Magistrate of Nellore confirming the order of maintenance made by the Justices of the Peace, Ramsgate, Kent, England. The Justices of the Peace made a provisional order for the maintenance of Mrs. Craker against her husband at the rate of 2 a week, and the District Magistrate has varied the order by directing the husband to pay at the rate of 30 shillings a week. In making this order he has overlooked two things. One is that the maintenance is payable from the date of the order directing maintenance to be paid; i. e. from the 31st May, 1926. The Justices of the Peace made the order of maintenance on the ground that for some eight weeks previous to 31st May, 1926 the husband did not maintain the wife and the District Magistrate has taken that period into consideration in directing the husband, Mr. Graker, to pay maintenance at the rate of 30 shillings a weak. This is wro...
In Re: Nagaraja Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.909; (1928)55MLJ320
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is to revise the judgment of the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 1926 by which he confirmed the conviction of the petitioner, the owner and driver of a motor car, under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1914, for failing to comply with Rule 27(c) of the Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Act.2. The rule in question runs as follows:The driver of a motor vehicle shall promptly report all occurrences of accidents to the nearest police station.3. The facts are briefly these. On the evening of the 3rd of June, 1926, the petitioner was returning from Kumbakonam in his own car with some friends to his home at Kapisthalam. When he reached Ramanujapuram bathing ghat on his way, the car went out of control and jumped over a culvert, the parapet of which was only 9 inches high, and fell into a channel. As a result of the accident, the front axle of the car was bent and some chunam was knocked off on the eastern...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bysani Ramasubbayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ712
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government against the order of the Sub-divisional First Class Magistrate of Chittoor, acquitting the counter-petitioner who was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Madanapallee under Section 55 (1) of the Abkari Act. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate found the facts as alleged by the prosecution but acquitted the counter-petitioner solely on the ground that there was no delivery of the brandy bottle to the buyer. Under Section 55 (1) of the Abkari Act, I of 1886, it is an offence for any one to sell any liquor or any intoxicating drug in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The word 'sell' is not defined; but 'sale' or 'selling' is defined as including any transfer otherwise than by way of gift. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that for the purpose of a sale it is unnecessary that there should be actual handing over of the property sold. Under the Contract Act there can be a sale without actual delivery of the goods ...
(Thalivil Manayil) Parameshwara Tirumumpu Vs. (Vilia) Narayana Tirumum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad172
Devadoss, J.1. Mr. Sivarama Menon for the appellant wants to contest the correctness of the decision in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair [1909] 32 Mad. 351. That decision was followed by me and Mr. Justice Spencer in Abuvakkar v. Kuhikuttiyali A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 153. I am not prepared at this stage to refer the appeal to a Bench on the ground that the decision in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair [1909] 32 Mad. 351 should be reconsidered.2. There is another point in the appeal which requires consideration. The parties belong to a class of Nambudhis who have adopted to some extent the Marumakkathayam law. The appellant asked the lower Court to take evidence on the question of custom obtaining in the class of Nambudiri families to which the parties belong, of the self-acquisition of a male member devolving upon the thavazhi and not upon the tarwad in case he dies intestate. This point was neither raised in the pleadings nor in the trial Court and the District Judge who heard the appeal did not ...
Damarla Subbiah Vs. Muhummad Mastan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad391; 108Ind.Cas.66
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Guntur that no sanction of Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C., is necessary for the prosecution of the president of the panchayat Court. The learned Public Prosecutor informs me that the District Magistrate has written to him to say that this sentence is a clerical error which has crept into his order. It cannot be said to be a clerical error because a whole sentence with a definite opinion is embodied in the order. Evidently the District Magistrate did not mean to pass the order. It was probably an expression of opinion by him which was by mistake embodied in the order drawn up and which was afterwards signed by some officer for the District Magistrate. Seeing that the District Magistrate clearly says that he never intended to pass this order, it cannot be taken to be his order. But inasmuch as a copy of the order has been given to the petitioner the only proper course would be to qua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »