Chennai Court February 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.
In Re: Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad18
1. The charge against the pleader in this case was that, having received two sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 54 from the defendant in a suit in which he was appearing for the plaintiff he misappropriated it and converted it to his own use. The money was received at the end. of 1923. Many demands were made upon him and he did not pay any attention to them. Ultimately some time in 1926 a complaint was launched under the Legal Practitioners Act against the pleader and he. then undoubtedly paid the money and he also put forward an explanation which the District Judge has found to be untrue, namely, that he had been asked by some relation-it is very difficult to make out which-of his client to keep the money in order that it might be utilized ' in the purchase of stones for the construction of a temple which I think the client's father was supposed to have been building in Sholinghur. Nobody came forward to speak to the story one way or the other. As I say, the learned Judge took the ...
Rangaswami Naicker and anr. Vs. Venkitachala Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad144
Wallace, J.1. I am not prepared to re-appreciate the evidence regarding the effect of the delivery under Ex. E. The Subordinate Judge has appreciated it from his point of view and I am not prepared to re-open his finding on a question of fact merely because the evidence of direct witnesses to what occurred some 15 years before they gave the evidence is of an uncertain nature. I must take it then that the delivery under Ex. E. to plaintiff on 17th September 1907 was not sham or symbolical but that he came into possession on that date and ousted those already there, whether these were defendant 1 or defendants 2 and 3. The only question then remaining, as the Subordinate Judge states, was whether defendants 2 and 3 had proved possession within 12 years of suit. As they were dispossessed on 17th September 1907, if they were in possession before that date, they could not establish adverse possession for 12 years prior to suit, since the suit was filed on 15th September 1919. It does not ma...
Rangaswami Naicker and anr. Vs. Venkatachala Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.170
Wallace, J.1. I am not prepared to re-appreciate the evidence regarding the effect of the delivery under Ex. E. The Subordinate Judge has appreciated it from his point of view and I am not prepared to re-open his finding on a question of fact merely because the evidence of direct witnesses to what occurred some 15 years before they gave the evidence is of an uncertain nature. I must take it then that the delivery under Ex. E, to plain tiff on 17th September, 1907, was not sham or symbolical but that he came into possession on that date and ousted those already there, whether these were 1st defendant or defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The only question then remaining, as the I Subordinate Judge states, was whether defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had proved possession within 12 years of suit. As they were dispossessed on 17th September, 1907, if they were in possession before that date, they could not establish adverse possession for 12 years prior to suit, since the suit was filed on 15th September, 1...
Konatam Kotigadu Vs. Kotturi Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1103
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The legal representative of the first judgment-debtor deceased is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal. Two contentions were raised on his behalf in the Court below. One was an objection based on some ground of res judicata. That has not been argued here. The second ground is one of limitation. It has been contended by the learned vakil for the appellant that the third execution petition made on the 29th June 1923 about two years and more after the death of the first judgment-debtor did not apply for execution against the legal representative of that deceased judgment debtor and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an execution application in accordance with law within the meaning of Clause 5, Art. 182, Limitation Act. At one stage I understood the learned vakil for the appellant to contend that the uncontradicted allegation on his part was that the execution-creditor-petitioner knew of the death of the first judgment-debtor and that in spite of...
Kolandai Chetty Vs. Perumal Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad369
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,. Dharmapuri, and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25 under S. ,22, Cattle Trespass Act. Although there were four adjournments of the trial he never engaged a vakil; but after he was convicted, he moved the Sessions Judge in revision, this Court in revision of the Sessions Judge's order, and this Court again direct.2. The cattle trespass case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupathur, North Arcot, and the accused who were as lax there, as the petitioner in this case, were convicted. The petitioner wants revision on the assumption that the Sub-Magistrate is a better Judge of fact than the Sub-Divisional Magistrate: There is no such presumption. The existence of the two judgments may assist petitioner in a departmental enquiry into his conduct; but not in revisional proceedings.3. The only other ground is that the Court could not award compensation unless it was claimed in the complaint. There is no such...
Kolandai Chetti Vs. Perumal Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.80
ORDERJackson, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25 under Section. 22, Cattle Trespass Act.2. Although there were four adjournments of the trial he never engaged a Vakil; he moved the Sessions Judge in revision, this Court in revision of the Sessions Judge's order, and this Court again direct.3. The cattle trespass case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupattur, North Arcot, and the accused who were as lax there, as the petitioner in this case, were convicted. The petitioner wants revision on the assumption that the Sub Magistrate is a better judge of fact than the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There is no such presumption. The existence of the two judgments may assist petitioner in a departmental inquiry into his conduct; but not in revisional proceedings.4. The only other ground is that the Court could not award compensation unless it was claimed in the complaint. There is no such restriction in the S...
In Re: Taranagowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ24
Wallace, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is against the order of the Sessions Judge of Bellary dismissing an appeal to him against an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bellary in a case under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Two points are urged : (1) that the period for which security has been ordered to be given exceeds the period fixed in the preliminary order under Section 112; (2) that the joint trial of the petitioners was illegal and highly prejudiced them.2. As to point (1), the preliminary order under Section 112 was drawn up apparently on 28th October 1925. Then the date has been struck out and 4th January, 1926, entered. That order called on the petitioners to show cause against giving security to keep the peace for one year, not, be it noted, for one year from that date. The final order was written and signed apparently on 20th September 1926 and pronounced on 2nd October, 1926. It is petitioners' contention that it is not open to the trial Court to orde...
Aiyya Mudali Velalan Vs. Sourimuthu Odayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad713; 103Ind.Cas.851; (1927)53MLJ222
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff bought certain land under Section 124, Madras Act (1 of 1908). When he attempted to take possession the 1st defendant the ryot whose holding was sold obstructed him. Hence the suit. The first defendant pleaded that the sale was irregularly conducted. The issue 2 (b) was accordingly framed. Was the rent sale held regularly and properly as required by law? In para. 8 of his judgment the District Munsif found that there was no irregularity, in fact nothing specific was alleged. On appeal the Subordinate Judge propounded to himself an issue whether the landlord had tendered a patta as required by S. S3 of the Act. He was fully aware that this issue was not raised by the defendant, because for that very reason he refused the 1st defendant his costs. In any case the suit would have to go back for an amendment of the written statement and a fresh trial upon the new issue of fact, and it is amazing that the Lower Appellate Court did not realize this before pronouncing f...
The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Obla Kuna Muna Sundarachari and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad684; (1927)53MLJ209
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 27,666-6-9 with costs and further interest alleged to be due on a mortgage executed on 1st November, 1921 by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant was adjudicated an insolvent in the Bombay High Court in March, 1922. The date of adjudication does not appear, but it was some time between the 7th and the 15th of March, 1922. The Official Assignee of Bombay is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 3rd defendant, the Madura Mills Company, were the lessees of the mortgage properties; But their lease expired and they have disclaimed all interests, so that it is unnecessary to consider them any further.2. First defendant died after suit and his widow has been brought on record as his legal representative. The Official Assignee who contested the suit raised several defences. The first was that no money was due on the mortgage as no consideration was paid. The second was that the mortgage was executed really benami for...
Muthukumarasami Mudaliar Alias Muthaiya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Harinara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ601
Jackson, J.1. The only point for determination in this appeal (except an application for an amendment of the pleadings which will be dealt with later) is whether supposing that the widowed daughter of the propositus professes to adopt a son, the nearest reversioner in the family of the propositus has a right of suit within the terms of Section 42, Act I of 1877, to set aside such adoption. The point was not raised in the Lower Courts where the parties were content to fight out the issues on the facts; so it is not a question whether the Lower Courts erred in discretion in allowing the suit, the time has long gone by to discuss discretion, but whether in law such a suit can possibly lie. The plaintiff is the reversioner, the 2nd defendant is the widowed daughter and the 3rd defendant is the person alleged to have been adopted by her though as now found the adoption was invalid.2. It is conceded by the learned Advocate-General that if the 2nd defendant had alienated the estate, a suit wo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »