Chennai Court November 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.
Muhammad Abdul Khuddus Sahib and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ashroof Sahib and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ40
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Nidadavole passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners' contention is that the land in dispute is a burial ground and that they as Muhammadans of Aurangabad are entitled to bury their dead there. The learned Magistrate has only addressed himself to the question of possession and has come to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession and directed that the possession should continue with them. In a case of this kind where certain persons claim to have the right to bury their dead in a burial ground, the Magistrate should have addressed himself to the question whether the persons claiming the right exercised that right when occasion arose. It is only in open spaces in a burial ground that new graves are made. The fact that a portion of the ground was ploughed and sown is no ground for thinking that it is not a burial-ground. The petitioners obtained a...
In Re: Chockalinga Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ117
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Saidapet confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Mr. Narasimhachariar for the petitioner contends that the lower appellate Court was not justified in looking into the complaint and the sworn statement of P.W. 1 in weighing the evidence. His argument is that under Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code the only record in the case is the judgment which embodies the substance of the evidence in the case and the appellate Court cannot go beyond the record, and the complaint and the sworn statement are outside the record of the case. The argument no doubt would sound strange but for the fact that the terms of the section are such as to support the contention. Section 264 is in these terms:(1) In every case tried summarily by a Magistrate or Bench in which an appeal lies, such Magistrate or Bench shall, before passing sentence, record a judg...
Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Karuppan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ663
1. The decision in Ramachandra Rao v. Kandasami ChettiILR (1895) M 498, cited by the court below, and those relied on in it, In re Pinto Silver Mining Company (1877) LR 8 Ch. D. 273 and In re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Company (1878) LR 11 Ch. D 140. as well as other cases show that when a company has been dissolved it ceases to exist for all purposes and its officers are functus officio; that a liquidator is also an officer of the company and becomes functus officio. Vide Re The Westbourne Grove Drapery Co., Ltd. (1878) 39 LT 30 and Coslon v. Gorst LR (1891) 2 Ch. 73. But assuming that it is so, the question still arises whether he cannot complete a formal act like giving a transfer in writing for a decree which has been already transferred.2. In the present case, the decree was transferred by auction on 1st February, 1922, when the company was not dissolved. It has been held in Afzal v. Ram Kumar Bhudra ILR (1886) C 610, Dagdu v. Vanji ILR (1900) B 502 and Govindarajulu N...
(Kunnath Veetil) Ittunan Panikkar Vs. (Natuvila Madhathil) Narayana Bh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad607
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal is defendant 1 and he was sued by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the suit land as a tenant thereof. It is clear that the land pertained to the Kallur Devaswom as the trustee of which the original plaintiff Kappiyur Swamiyar instituted the action. The plaintiff described himself also as the Muppil Sthanam in the Naduvil Madham. It is admitted before us that shortly after the institution of this suit the Durbar of the Maharajah of Cochin removed the plaintiff from his office as trustee of the Naduvil Madham. The Durbar also purported to appoint in his place in the said Madham one Azhakapra Swamiyar who is now respondent 6 in this second appeal. He was added as respondent in the lower appellate Court not on any application by him under Rule 10, Order 22, Civil P.C. or any other provision of law, but, so far as we are able to see, by the Court itself suo motu. The learned District Judge appears to have made such ...
Vadlamudi Sastrulu and ors. Vs. Thalluri Venkataseshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad614; 110Ind.Cas.894
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit brought under Order 1, Section 8, Civil P.C. by five plaintiffs claiming to be worshippers of five temples in Vellatur, Repalle taluk, Guntur District, formerly Kistna District, for certain reliefs in respect of the suit properties which are alleged to belong to the idols of the suit temples. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Appeal No 122 was filed by defendants 2 to 44 and Appeal No. 463 was filed by defendants 45 to 47.2. The facts of the case may now be briefly stated. Early in the last century one Thadikonda Seshayya, grandfather of defendant 1's adoptive father, who was originally a native of Vellattur went to Hyderabad, and after acquiring much wealth in the Nizam's Dominions returned to his native place where he built the suit five temples for the deities of Siddi Ganapathi Swami, Rajeswara Swami, Bhimeswara Swami, Authi Seshachala Swami and Kameswari Maharani. During his lifetime he was conduct...
Kailappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad651
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Namakkal confirming the conviction of the petitioners under several sections of the Indian Penal Code.2. The first point urged is that the lower appellate Court finds that a document was fabricated, and if that be so the case would be one exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and a 2nd Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The appellate Magistrate does not find that the document was fabricated. What he finds is that the complainant was coerced into putting the thumb impression to a document. As the defence relied upon this document as a genuine document the learned Magistrate considered the question whether the thumb-impression was obtained in the ordinary course, or whether the complainant was coerced into putting her thumb-impression. The charge is not one of fabricating false evidence. Therefore, there is nothing in this point.3. One other point raised on behalf ...
Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Karuppan Chettiar (Given Up) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.563
1. The decision in Ram-Chandra Rau v. Kandasami Chetti 18 M. 498 : 6 Ind. Dec.698 cited by the Court below and those relied on it--In re Pinto Silver Mining Co., (1878) 8 Ch. D. 273 : 47 L.J. Ch. 591 : 38 L.T. 536 : 26 W.R. 622 and In re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 140 : 40 L.T. 666 : 27 W.R. 713,--as well as other cases show, that when a Company has been dissolved it ceases to exist for all purposes and its officers are functus officio; and that a liquidator is also an officer of the Company and becomes functus officio Vide In re Westbourne Grove Drapery Co., 1879) 39 L.T. 30 : 27 W.R. 37 and Coxon v. Gorst (1891) 2 Ch. 73 : 60 L.J. Ch. 502 : 64 L.T. 444 : 39 W.R. 600. But assuming that it is so, the question still arises whether he cannot complete a formal act like giving a transfer in writing for a decree which has been already transferred.2. In the present case, the decree was transferred by auction on 1st February, 1922, when the Company was not dis...
Kunnath Veetil Ittunan Panikkar Vs. Nattuvile Madhathil Narayana Bhara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.789
1. The appellant in this second appeal is the 1st defendant and he was sued by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the suit land as a tenant thereof. It is clear that the land pertained to the Kallur Devaswom as the trustee of which the original plaintiff Kappiyar Swamiyar instituted the action. The plaintiff described himself also as the Muppil Sthanam in the Nadhuvil Madham. It is admitted before us that shortly after the institution of this suit the Durbar of the Maharajah of Cochin removed the plaintiff from his office as trustee of the Nadhuvil Madham. The Durbar also purported to appoint in his place in the said Madham one Azhakapra Swamiyar who is now the 6th respondent in this second appeal. He was added as respondent in the lower Appellate Court not on any application by him under Rule 10 of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code or any other provision of law, but so far as we are able to see by the Court itself auo motu. The learned District Judge appears to have ...
In Re: Maridu Gopayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.233; (1928)55MLJ27
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The District Magistrate of Kistna has referred an order of the Sub-Magistrate of. Gudivada under Section 221 of the Madras Local Boards Act for revision.2. One Gopayya had erected a pandal without the permission of the Union Board and the Board applied to the Sub-Magistrate under Section 221 of the Local Boards Act for collection of the license fee due in respect of it. Admittedly no license was applied for or granted before the pandal was erected and it was open to the Board to take action under Section 219 of the Act which provides a penalty not exceeding Rs. 50 for omission to take a license. Under Section 212(9) the Magistrate may also recover the amount of the fee chargeable from the accused. Instead of taking this action the Board took a lenient view of Gopayya's act and agreed to license the pandal on payment of the fee. This action cannot be said to be illegal and consequently if the fee thereby became payable the Board can apply for an order under Section 2...
In Re: Ramalinga Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.590; (1928)55MLJ217
ORDERDevadoos, J.1. This is an application for transfer of C.C. No. 23 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mayavaram, now pending before the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, back to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram. The main ground urged by Mr. Ethiraj is that his clients, the accused, were not given notice before the transfer was ordered. In cases of transfer, the District Magistrate, before passing an order of transfer, should give an opportunity to the accused to show cause why a transfer should not be made. In this case, the accused were not given notice of the application for the transfer of the case and the learned District Magistrate seems to have thought that he had no power to revise his own order. It cannot be said that an order of transfer is a final order. If sufficient grounds are shown, the case once transferred can be re-transferred to the same Magistrate or transferred to any other Magistrate who in the opinion of the Dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »