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.
Paramasiva Mooppan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad591
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the judgment of the Joint Magistrate of Kombakonam. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 188,I. P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine. The prosecution case is that they disobeyed the order duly promulgated by the Magistrate not to assemble in Kapistalam. P.W. 1 says that there was a crowd of 25 in the temple and he told them to go away and that they should not assemble in contravention of the order passed, and most of them left except the accused, 11 in number, who stayed and would not go away. That the order was duly promulgated is proved and that that is a proper order is not disputed. But the contention of Mr. Ethiraj is that the elements of an offence under Section 188 have not been made out inasmuch as there is no finding that the disobedience caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed. There is no finding of either of the Courts...
The Cannanore Municipal Council Through Its Chairman Rao Sahib K. Chan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad683; 108Ind.Cas.740; (1928)54MLJ454
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this Civil Revision petition is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of schedule V, Clause (q) of the District Municipalities Act. The Municipality of Cannanore assessed the respondent in respect of two buildings belonging to him in which he had a number of looms. He paid the assessment and afterwards filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court for the recovery of the amount on the ground that it was illegally levied from him. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff, and the Municipality has preferred this revision petition.2. The only question for consideration is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of Clause (q) of Schedule V. The contention of Mr. Govindan for the petitioner is that it 5s machinery, or, even if it is not to be treated as such, the Municipality having bona fide assessed the respondent and having complied with all the formalities required by the Act, the respondent is not entitled to get back t...
Sree Rajah Bommadevara Naganna Nayudu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Thurag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ595
Waller, J.1. I do not think that this Court has any power to interfere. The Joint Sub-Registrar acts under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act merely as if he were a Civil Court. I do not think that he is a court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Rajah Saheb of Vizianagram Vs. the Sub-collector of Berhampore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.656; (1928)54MLJ229
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Collector of Berhampore demanding search-fees for supplying copies to a party. It is difficult to see under what provision of law the Sub-Collector directed search-fees to be paid by a party applying for copies of records in his Court. There is no provision of law and there is nothing in the Civil Rules of Practice or in any rule which governs the procedure in Civil Courts, authorising the levy of search-fees for supplying copies to litigants. When an application is made, all that is required by a party is to supply stamps for copies and, if the required number of copy stamps are supplied, it is the Court's duty to furnish copies asked for. The order of the Sub-Collector is clearly without jurisdiction and is therefore set aside, and the Sub-Collector will direct his office to furnish such copies as the parties may require on their furnishing the copy stamp papers. If such illegal orders are passed, this Court will co...
Cherukuri Nagamma and anr. Vs. Cherukoori Lakshminarasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1085
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Ongole giving leave to the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit. The contention of Mr. Raghava Rao for the petitioners is that the order of the District Munsif was without jurisdiction as none of the grounds mentioned in Order 23, Rule 1 were present in the case. The facts of the case are: The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that they were reversioners to one Venkatappayya and that a will said to have been executed by him was not executed by him in favour of the defendants. Defendant 1, the mother of Venkatappayya, set up a will and contended that the property was devised to her and defendant 2 absolutely. Daring the course of the suit both the parties agreed that the matters in dispute should be referred to arbitration, and the District Munsif acceded to the request of the parties and sent the case to an arbitrator for passing an award. The arbitrator made an a...
Rani Kulandai Pandichi Alias Kulandaivelu Nachiar and anr. Vs. Indran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.539; (1928)55MLJ345
Kumaraswmai Sastri, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge calling upon the plaintiffs to amend the valuation in the plaint and to pay additional court-fees. The suit was to set aside the compromise and the rajinama decree passed in O.S. No. 35 of 1917. O.S. No. 35 of 1917 was filed by the present plaintiffs who claimed to be entitled to the zamindari of Thalavankottai. The prayers in the plaint were for possession of the properties in the schedules to the plaint with past and future mesne profits and in the alternative for maintenance at Rs. 250 a month and past maintenance. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,00,000 and a court-fee of Rs. 2,300 was paid. The suit was compromised and a rajinama decree was passed. By the rajinama the plaintiffs withdrew their claim in respect of the immoveable properties and got a decree for maintenance at Rs. 50 a month for each of them and also residence. It was recited in the rajinama that the claim for arrears of maint...
Authimoolam Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ351
1. This petition arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to restore a suit dismissed by him. The facts are shortly these. The plaintiff who is a resident out of British India filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover certain sovereigns which were confiscated. As he was away out of British India an application was made for security for costs and security was ordered. He did not give security within the time but filed an application for extension of time to give security. As regards the suit itself it was adjourned more than once and the final disposal of the suit and the petition to extend the time for security came on together. An order was passed extending the time and accepting the security, but, when the case was taken up, the plaintiff's pleader said that he was not prepared to go on as the witnesses subpoened were absent. The party was also present at that time and he too was not prepared to go on with the result that the Subor...
(Srilasri) Subramania Desika Gnanasambandha Pandara Sannadhi Avergal V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad592; 110Ind.Cas.544
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge who on the petition of the plaintiff, held that Mr. Jayaramier, vakil for the respondent, should not appear for the defendant in the application by the plaintiff to file a suit as pauper. The pauper suit, leave to file' which was applied for, relates to the Dharmapuram mutt. The late pandarasannadhi was murdered and the present? plaintiff was charged with abetment of the murder. He was acquitted. His case is that he was duly elected as pan-darasannadhi and the defendant in the case has got no rights to that office. In the criminal case, question arose as to what was done on the morning after the murder and the evidence of some witnesses was that on the morning the present plaintiff was elected as the pandarasannadhi and that he performed the' funeral ceremonies. In the criminal proceedings it was not necessary to decide the question of the election of the plaintiff as pandarasannadhi and all th...
Authimoolan Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.897
1. This petition arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to restore a suit dismissed by him. The facts are shortly these. The plaintiff who is a resident out of British India filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover certain sovereigns which were confiscated. As he was away out of British India an application was made for security for costs and security was ordered. He did not give security within the time but filed an application for extension of time to give security. As regards the suit itself it was adjourned more than once and the final disposal of the suit and the petition to extend the time for security came on together. An order was passed extending the time and accepting the security but when the case was taken up the plaintiff's Pleader said that he was not prepared to go on as the witnesses subpoenaed were absent. The party was also present at that time and he too was not prepared to go on with the result that the Subordi...
Thiruvengadaswami Aiyangar Vs. Govindaswami Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad503; (1928)55MLJ363
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The judgment-debtor under a mortgage-decree directing the sale of mortgaged properties has raised the question in controversy in two forms - in the form of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and in the form of a Civil Revision Petition. The main point relates to the duty of the executing Court with regard to the determination of the market value of the property ordered to be sold. The complaint before us was that the lower Court was wrong in not determining for itself the market value of the property for the purpose of the same being inserted in the proclamation of sale and further in directing that in the proclamation of sale the valuation of the property as stated both by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor as well as that reported by the Commissioner appointed in the case should be set out without indicating any determination by the Court itself.2. We shall later on refer to the argument that was specially addressed to us with regard to this manner of settin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »