Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1927)53MLJ759
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Two points have been argued in this case (1) that it is not shown that the place where the accused fished was within the Government village and (2) that fish could not be subject of theft.2. On the first point there is the definite finding that the place of fishing is within the limits of Manikyahur (Government) village. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses supports that finding which is one of fact. (2) As regards the 2nd point there is the finding that the fish were in ponds and that it is by baling the water out from the ponds that fish are caught in this case. They are confined in the ponds and could not escape from the same and go elsewhere. Such fish could be the subject of theft [Per Miller, J., in Manchu Paidigadu v. Kadimsetti Tammayya 22 IND.CAS. 429 : 1914 M.W.N. 168].3. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1013; (1927)53MLJ890
1. S.M.K. Mohamad Rowmer was adjudicated insolvent on 31st March, 1924, on a petition filed on 17th March, 1924, by a creditor Chengalvaraya Chettiar. The Official Assignee of Madras applied to have a sale deed, dated 27th October, 1923, and a deed of transfer of mortgage, dated 11th November, 1923, executed by the insolvent in favour of the garnishee (S. M. Sheik Moideen Rowther) declared void under Section 55, or in the alternative under Section 56, of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The learned judge having dismissed the application, the Official Assignee has preferred this appeal.2. The insolvent was carrying on business as a commission agent at Madras. He had a branch shop in Tinnevelly. In 1923 the insolvent was largely indebted. He was indebted to the garnishee to the extent of about Rs. 20,000 in May 1923, and he had executed in favour of Chengalvaraya Chettiar a promissory note on 1st October, 1923, for Rs. 30,000, the amount having been advanced to the insolvent between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad203
1. Appeal against appellate order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A.S. No. 86 of 1925. The respondent obtained a decree on 5th December 1921, to the effect that second appellant and two others should pay him a certain sum of money and he might also proceed against certain properties charged therein. He proceeded against the properties without previous attachment. Such procedure has the authority of M. Chandu Kutty v. K.K. Narayann, Nayar : AIR1925Mad1083 , but whether that authority should or should not be followed is not the point before us, because appellant 1 and the special receivers in insolvency who were acting with him after the insolvency of the original judgment-debtors allowed the execution proceedings to go on without raising the question; and it is now pleaded that their omission to do so constitutes res judicata.2. The proceedings were frequently adjourned at the instance of the appellants (vide counter affidavit dated 19th April 1924), until in March 1924 appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad394; 108Ind.Cas.208
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Jackson, J., annulling the adjudication of the appellant. The appellant filed an application to be declared insolvent stating that she was unable to pay her debts and that she owed a debt of over Rs. 500. It has now been found that her statement that she was unable to pay her debts was absolutely false and that her only reason for filing the application was to avoid being harassed by her creditor in execution, although she was well able to satisfy his debt. On these facts the adjudication was annulled; and curiously enough the petitioner now asks the Court again to declare her an insolvent, not because she is really insolvent, but merely to evade payment of a debt and apparently also in order that she may retain the stigma of insolvency. It is difficult to understand her conduct, but she has chosen to adopt this somewhat discreditable course and the matter must be dealt with in accordance with the law.2. The first objection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad785
ORDER1. In para. 8 of the petition, the petitioner alleged that, as the easement in dispute in this case affected lands of the plaintiff of the value of Rs. 10,000, the appeal relates to property of the value of Rs. 10,000. The strip of land over which the right of way is declared is five yards broad and nearly 1/2 or 3/4 acre in area. Its value is admitted in the plaint to be Rs. 1,500. But the petitioner says that the value of the whole survey No. 146 over which the way passes is Rs. 10,000. No affidavit has been filed for the petitioner. The respondents do not admit the value of Survey No. 146 to be Rs. 10,000. But assuming that the whole survey No. 146 is worth Rs. 10,000, it is impossible to say that the matter in dispute relates indirectly to the whole of the survey No. 146. The petitioner relies on Subramanya Ayyar v. Sellammal [1915] 39 Mad. 843 and Mani Lal v. Banni Bai A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 266. The former case does not help the petitioner and the latter is against him. But he poi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 105Ind.Cas.826
ORDERAnanthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Two points have been argued in this case (1) that it is not shown that the place where the accused fished was within the Government village and (2) that fish could not be subject of theft.2. On the first point there is the definite finding that the place of fishing is within the limits of Manikyapur (Government) village. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses supports that finding which is one of fact (2). As regards the second point there is the finding that the fish were in ponds and that it is by baling the water cut from the ponds that fish are caught in this case. They are confined in the ponds and could not escape from the same and go elsewhere. Such fish could be the subject of theft: Per Miller, J, in Manchu Puidugadu v. Kadimsetti Tammayya 22 Ind. Cas. 429 : (1914) M.W.N. 168 : 15 Cri. L.J. 772. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1080; (1927)53MLJ757
ORDERJackson, J.1. Appeal against the acquittal of a motor-bus owner for allowing his driver to drive his omnibus without a license in contravention of Section 6 of Act VIII of 1914.2. The license had expired and the accused pleaded that the expiry was without his knowledge. A man cannot entrust his car to another person and plead that he presumed that he was licensed. He must assure himself that he is licensed.3. The acquittal is accordingly set aside. Accused is found guilty of allowing his motor vehicle to be driven by a person without a license as proved by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and is fined Rs. 5 (Rupees five), in default one week's simple imprisonment--Sections 6 and 16 of Act VIII of 1914....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1927)53MLJ760
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 18 of 1926 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Trichinopoly His son, the 1st accused, was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, with having voluntarily caused grievous hurt with an aruval to P.W. 1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 114 and 326, Indian Penal Code, with having abetted the 1st accused (the son) and being present at the occurrence. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. It appears from judgments of the Lower Courts that the part taken by the petitioner in the commission of the offence was only this, namely, that he desired his son to cut P.W. 1. In one part of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, the part played by the petitioner is thus described:Appellant I (the son) cut him with an aruval at the instigation of appellant 2 (the petitioner).2. There is no evidence that prior to this incident there was any conspiracy between the father and son to waylay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)54MLJ682
Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The question that arises for decision in these cases is which of the two, plaintiff or the defendant, is entitled to the management of the Tarwad known as Kothukkotte in Kannadi Amsom and Desom, and as Pattathil in Mathoor Amsom and Desom of the Palghat Taluk. The court of first instance decided the question in favour of the defendant, whereas the lower appellate court has decided the point in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant accordingly has preferred these second appeals. To appreciate property the point in dispute, it is necessary to mention that in 1904 the Karnavan of the Tarwad was Parakunni Mannadiar and the next senior Anandravan was Gopala Mannadiar. Original Suit No. 11 of 1904 was instituted by 18 junior members of the Tarwad against Parakunni Mannadiar as the 1st defendant and Gopala Mannadiar as the 2nd defendant for the removal of Karnavan Parakunni Mannadiar, and also for the removal of the senior Anandravan Gopala Mannadiar on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad377
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Three points have been raised and argued by the learned vakil for the appellants, Mr. K. Balasubramania Iyer, in this second appeal. The suit from which this appeal has arisen was instituted by one Srirangam Nallan Chakravarthi Singara-Chariar for a declaration that he is the legal holder of the office of what is called third arulapad or third thirtham in the temple of Sri Devaraja Swami at Coneeveram and for an injunction restraining the defendants, trustees for the time being of the temple, from interfering with the discharging of his office and also for the recovery of emoluments for a period of six years prior to suit. In the Court of first instance the District Munsif granted the decree in favour of the plain- tiff. The same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court with some slight modifications; And hence this second appeal.2. The first point that was argued was that it has not been proved by the plaintiff that there is in connexion with the suit temple...
Tag this Judgment!