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.
Abdul Ghani Sahib and ors. Vs. N.P.R.M.V.R.M. Subramania Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad44
Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiffs in suit No. 165 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Koilpatti against an order passed by the learned District Munsif by which he declined to grant leave to the petitioners, plaintiffs, to institute the suit on behalf of the village community concerned under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. The brother of defendant 1 claimed title to certain properties under purchase from the alleged original defendant 2 as manager of the endowment and got a decree in his favour.2. In the present plaint, the plaintiffs, three Mahomedans of the locality alleged that the decree in the prior suit was not binding upon the trust, and the plaintiffs prayed to have the appropriate reliefs granted to them in respect of the matters. At the time of filing the plaint, the plaintiffs also put in an application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., for permission to be allowed to sue on behalf of the village community interested...
Parthasarathi Naicker Vs. T. Krishnaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ641
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Saidapet, awarding compensation to the accused in a case brought by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate disposed of the case after hearing only five of the prosecution witnesses and he did not care to examine the rest of the evidence as he thought that the remaining witnesses would not materially help the case. In these circumstances, he was not justified in awarding compensation to the accused. It is only after the examination of all the evidence the complainant wanted to adduce that he could come to the conclusion that the case is false and vexatious. No doubt he was entitled at any stage to discharge the accused, but that would not be a ground for awarding compensation to the accused. I therefore set aside the order of compensation and direct the amount, if recovered, to be refunded to the petitioner....
M. Doraiswami Aiyangar and Bros. Vs. P. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad2
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application made by the plaintiff for permission to amend his plaint. The amendment proposed affects defendant 3, who opposes the application. The question I have to decide is: can the proposed amendment be allowed? I shall refer to such allegations in the plaint as are relevant to the present purpose. The suit is brought to enforce an equitable mortgage created by defendant 1, by his depositing certain title-deeds. There were dealings between the plaintiff's firm and in the course of those dealings the latter executed promissory notes in favour of the former. About the month of December 1925, there was a sum of little over Rs. 12,000 due to the plaintiffs and it is alleged that defendant 1 then deposited with them title-deeds of properties mentioned in Schedules B, C and D to the plaint with a view to create an equitable mortgage over them. Although the deeds were deposited by defendant 1, it is alleged that he represented that he was making the depos...
H.J.E. Maccarthy Vs. Lord Shannen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad135
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application by the complainant to revise the ' order of the District Magistrate of the Nilgiris dismissing his complaint of robbery. The contention of the complainant is that he was the owner of a car and he was in possession of it for over two years and that the counter-petitioner forcibly took the car from his possession and thereby committed robbery. The learned District Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath sent for some records from the police and for some records from a private individual, perused them and came to the conclusion that the counter-petitioner acted under a bona fide claim of right and, therefore, no offence was committed by him. It does not appear from the records, nor is it suggested by Mr. Smith who appears for the counter-petitioner, that the complainant was given an opportunity to meet the evidence that was available before the Magistrate to disprove the statements made in the complaint. It is open to a Magistrate to h...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Budipiti Devasikamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ228
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The accused in this case was charged before the learned Agency Sessions Judge, East Godavari, that he, on the 19th of June, 1926, committed mischief by setting fire to the thatched building of the Board Elementary School at Gurtedu, with intent to destroy the same, an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused took a torch from the kitchen, ran to the building, put it to the thatch and then threw it on the roof of the kitchen and ran away. The thatch caught fire and the school building was completely destroyed. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused set fire to the school building but acquitted him on the ground that he was insane at the time when he did it and was therefore incapable of forming the intention or of having the knowledge which forms an essential ingredient of the offence. Against this acquittal the Crown has presented this appeal.2. The accused is a smoker of ganja. There is evide...
A. Krishnaswami Aiyar Vs. Tatha Raghaviah Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ679
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This application is made under Order 5-A of the Original Side Rules. These provisions relate to what is known as 'third party procedure' and were framed only recently and I understand that this is the Erst application made in this Court under this Order.2. The plaintiff's action is one to enforce a mortgage created by the 1st defendant and the latter claims indemnity as against the 2nd defendant. The facts which according to the 1st defendant give rise to his claim are these : The 2nd defendant is the elder brother of the 1st and they had a sister by name Sitamma. She wanted to help the 1st defendant who was in difficulties and with that object entrusted the 2nd defendant with a sum of Rs. 50,000 directing him to redeem the suit house which was the ancestral house of the 1st defendant and thus free it from the suit mortgage to which it was subject and hand it over to the 1st defendant. The latter who is the applicant asks that the question raised should be determ...
(Suryadevara) Venkata Krishnayya and ors. Vs. Vasireddi Madamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad926
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. These will cases always entail a certain amount of difficulty. Vernacular wills are drawn up inartistically and it may be that in this very will there are certain clauses which are not easily reconcilable with others. The main trouble no doubt has arisen from the fact that this testator contemplated that his daughter should marry his nephew Subbiah in illatom. Unfortunately that project was thwarted by his death. After expressing his wish that the illatom marriage should take place, he says:To the said properties and to my assets and liabilities, my daughter Subbamma and my sister's son Subbiah shall be the kartas (heirs entitled) and they shall be discharging the debts from out of the income of the lands and be supporting my mother and wife.2. It is really a matter of first impression and in this particular case, I not being very familiar with Telugu wills-I have seen plenty of Tamil ones-do not derive much assistance from the other terms of the will. But constr...
A. Krishnaswami Ayyar Vs. Thatha Raghaviah Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.423
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This application is made under Order V-A of the Original Side Rules. These provisions relate to what is known as 'third party procedure' and were framed only recently and I understand that this is the first application made in this Court under this order.2. The plaintiff's action is one to enforce a mortgage created by the first defendant and the latter claims indemnity as against the second defendant. The facts which according to the first defendant give rise to his claim are these: The second defendant is the elder brother of the first and they had a sister by name Sitamma. She wanted to help the first defendant who was in difficulties and with that object entrusted the second defendant with a sum of Rs. 50,000 directing him to redeem the suit house which was the ancestral house of the first defendant and thus free it from the suit mortgage to which it was subject and hand it over to the first defendant. The latter who is the applicant asks that the question ra...
Vitta Venkatachalam and anr. Vs. Sivapuram Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad655; 108Ind.Cas.889; (1928)54MLJ448
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the plaintiff in respect of an order made by the District Judge of Kurnool on appeal by the defendant against an order made by the District Munsif of Markapur. On application by the defendant the District Munsif refused to set aside the decree passed against him ex parte. The District Munsif dismissed the application holding that the summons in the case had been duly served within the meaning of Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act and that therefore the application to set aside the decree passed ex parte more than 30 days from that date did not lie. The service which the District Munsif held to be such due service within the meaning of Article 164 was substituted service of summons ordered by the court. As the defendant's application to set aside the decree was dismissed, he appealed, and, on appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the order of the District Munsif, as I find, mainly on the ground that there wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›