Chennai Court December 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.
Nune Panakalu Vs. Rao Saheb Ravula Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.625; (1929)57MLJ331
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner in these cases, a defeated candidate at an election in the Chirala Municipality, filed a complaint before the Joint Magistrate of Ongole against the 1st accused the successful candidate, the 2nd accused the Municipal Chairman, and the 3rd accused the Polling Officer, under Sections 52(2), 54(a), 54(b), 56 and 57 of the District Municipalities Act. Generally stated, the charge against them was that they all conspired together and procured improper entries in the voters' list, threatened voters with prosecutions for alleged encroachments, etc., detained some of them under wrongful restraint and infringed rules for preserving secrecy of the election--these things having been done for the purpose of supporting the candidature of the 1st accused. The Joint Magistrate took the complaint on file against the 1st and the 3rd accused and passed an order that Section of the Government appeared to be necessary for the prosecution of the 2nd accused. The comp...
Moideen Rowthen Vs. Miyyassa Pulavar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ444
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises the question whether an appeal lies under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court from an appellate order of the District Judge making a complaint which the District Munsif refused to make when an application was made to him under Section 476.2. The facts are briefly these. The appellant was the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1925 in the District Munsif s Court, Palghat, and the respondent was the 2nd defendant. The suit was on a promissory-note said to have been executed by both the defendants to the plaintiff. The appellant contended that the suit note was not executed by him. His contention being upheld the suit was decreed against the respondent. The respondent then moved the District Munsif under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to present a complaint to the Sub-divisional First Class Magistrate of Palghat charging the appellant with having intentionally given false evidence in a jud...
(Chaduvula) Munuswami Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad783
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Nellore refusing to withdraw a complaint of the Joyit Magistrate for perjury. The only ground urged by Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioner is that the Joint Magistrate who made a complaint of perjury did not record a finding that the offence of perjury had been committed and that in the interests of justice it was necessary that an inquiry should be made into the offence. Section 476 requires that if a civil, revenue or criminal Court thinks that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the...
Saminatha Nayinan Vs. Kuppuswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad652; 110Ind.Cas.581
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam refusing to summon the Pandarasannadhi of Tiruvadhuthurai as a defence witness. The contention of Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioner is that summons was issued to the Pandarasannadhi, but on the application of the complainant the Sub-Magistrate declined to send for and examine two witnesses including the Pandarasannadhi as they in his opinion appeared to have been included with a view to cause vexation to those witnesses themselves. This he had no jurisdiction to do. Evidently the Magistrate ordered summons to issue without scrutinising the list of witnesses put in for the defence. Though he should not have acted on the representation of the complainant, the Magistrate was perfectly justified, when the matter was brought to his notice that certain witnesses were cited only for the purpose of causing vexation and delay, in ordering that they should not be compelled to appear i...
Rajagopala Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Raghava Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1055
Kumaraswami Sastri, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the sons of defendant 1 for partition and for setting aside the alienations made by the father, defendant 1.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they and defendant 1 were members of an undivided Hindu family and that the father, defendant 1, made certain alienations which they impeach as not binding on them for the reasons given in the plaint. Several issues were raised. It is only necessary to consider issues 5 and 6. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary point that the suit was barred by limitation because defendant 25, the elder brother of the plaintiffs, who was a major did not contest the alienations within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and that consequently the plaintiffs who were his brothers were barred, even though the suit was brought within three years after plaintiff 1 attained majority and even though plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are still...
In Re: Vadugu Kumar Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.583
ORDERDevadoss, J.This is an application to revise the order of the First Class Magistrate of Melur Division declining to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner by the Special Second Class Magistrate of Madura under Section 159 (1) read with Section 207 (1) (c), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. The only point urged before me by Mr. Ethiraj is that a conviction under Sections 159 and 207 cannot be had against the representative of a community. The prosecution was for disobedience of an order to remove an obstruction to a public pathway. The Sub-Magistrate in the course of his judgment observes that 'the petitioner is one of the representatives as the treasurer for the community. The charge against him is also in his capacity as a representative of Nadars although it is not stated so in the notice'.In appeal it was contended that the encroached portion belonged to the Hadar community and not to the accused in his private capacity. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate observed in his judgm...
Chaduvulu Munuswami Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.588
ORDERThis is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Nellore refusing to withdraw a complaint of the Joint Magistrate for perjury. The only ground urged by Mr Ethiraj for the petitioner is that the Joint Magistrate who made a complaint of perjury did not record a finding that the offence of perjury had been committed and that in the interests of justice it was necessary that an inquiry should be made into the offence. Section 476 requires that if a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court thinks that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magis...
Rajagopala Ayyengar and ors. Vs. Srinivasaragava Ayyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.572
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the sons of the 1st defendant for partition and for setting aside the alienations made by the father, the 1st defendant.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they and the 1st defendant were members of an undivided Hindu family and that the father, the 1st defendant, made certain alienations which they impeach as not binding on them for the reasons given in the plaint. Several issues were raised. It is only necessary to consider issues No. 5 and 6. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary point that the suit was barred by limitation, because the 25th defendant, the elder brother of the plaintiffs, who was a major did not contest the alienations within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and that consequently the plaintiffs who were his brothers were barred even though the suit was brought within three years after the 1st plaintiff attained majority a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›