Chennai Court January 1928 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: M. Visvanadha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ442
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been placed before a Full Bench at the instance, we are informed, of the Public Prosecutor. The dispute out of which it arises is concerned with the rights of the Hindus of Nellore town to conduct processions with music past the mosques of that place. The Hindus have obtained from a competent Civil Court a declaration of their right to conduct such processions subject to certain limitations. In October last, they were, however, prohibited by an order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, from 'taking any procession with music in any street of Nellore where there are mosques.' The operation of the order has been extended till 7th February by the Governor in Council 'in so far as it prohibits any procession with music within 50 yards of any mosque in Nellore.'2. Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioners concedes that he cannot contend that it is the duty of the authorities who are responsible for the preservation o...
In Re: Veerappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.353; (1928)55MLJ591
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is quite definite as to the position of the verdict of a jury in the case of an appeal from the verdict of a jury which is dealt with in Chapter XXXI. By Section 418 it is enacted thatAn appeal may lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case the appeal shall lie on a matter of law only.And the same view is emphasized by Section 423 (2):Nothing herein contained shall authorize the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as Laid down by him.2. The inference is that the draftsman of the Indian Statute was familiar with the English Law as Laid down in Solomon v. Bitton10 and so far as concerned appeals meant to enact that state of things for India. It may be useful to examine that decision in reference...
Ramasamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Marimuthu Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad764; 113Ind.Cas.865
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out a suit tiled on a mortgage bond (Ex. A), dated 6th April 1907, executed by Muthuswami Goundan, grandfather of the two defendants. The mortgagor died on 1st September 1915 His son, Kandaswami Goundan, the father of the two defendants, died in 1917 or 1918. The suit was filed on 6th February 1920. The plaint alleged that the mortgage debt was taken for the purposes of the defendants' family, for paying antecedent debts and meeting necessary expenses of the family, and that the defendants are the undivided grandsons of the mortgagor. The defendants denied these allegations. They alleged that the mortgagor had no right to the suit properties, that they never formed part of the joint family properties of the mortgagor or his son and they also denied that the mortgagor was manager of the family at the time of the mortgage. They pleaded that the property belonged solely and exclusively to Marimuthu Goundan, father of the mortgagor and grandfather of the de...
Movva Nageswara Rao and anr. Vs. Mandava (Kotayya)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad830
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. These two second appeals have arisen from a suit and a cross-suit relating to the same piece of land. Second appeal No. 446 of 1925 is from a suit which was instituted for possession by the purchaser of property from a person who had become a major after his majority. Second appeal No. 445 of 1925 is from a suit for specific performance of a contract for execution of a conveyance in respect of the suit property on the ground that the contract for the sale thereof had been entered into on behalf of defendant 1 by defendant 2 as his guardian. No question has been raised before us as regards the power of defendant 2 to act as guardian of the minor. The question has been considerably narrowed down before us by the very fair manner in which both the learned gentlemen have stated the case and the point that arises for decision. It is simply this: whether the guardian of a Hindu minor can enter into a contract on his behalf so as to bind the minor in such a manner as ...
In Re: M. Viswanadha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.863
ORDER1. This criminal [revision petition has been placed before a Full Bench at the instance, we are informed, of the Public Prosecutor. The dispute out of which it arises, is concerned with the rights of the Hindus of Nellore Town to conduct processions with music past the mosques of that place. The Hindus have obtained from a competent Civil Court a declaration of their right to conduct such processions subject to certain limitations. In October last, they were, however, prohibited by an order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, from 'taking any procession with music in any street of Nellore where there are mosques' the operation of the order has been extended till 7th February, by the Governor in Council 'in so far as it prohibits any procession with music within SO yards of any mosque in Nellore.'2. Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioners concedes that he cannot contend that it is the duty of the authorities who are responsible for the preservation...
Mova Nageswara Rao Vs. Mandava Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.495
These two second appeals have arisen from a suit and a cross-suit relating to the same piece of land. Second Appeal No. 446 of 1925 is from a suit which was instituted for possession by the purchaser of property from a person who had become a major after his majority. Second Appeal No. 445 of 1925 is a suit for specific performance of a contract for execution of a conveyance in respect of suit property on the ground that the contract for the sale thereof had been entered into on behalf of the first defendant by the second defendant as his guardian. No question has been raised before us as regards the power of the second defendant to act as guardian of the minor. The question has been considerably narrowed down before us by the very fair manner in which both the learned gentlemen have stated the case and the point that arises for decision. It is simply this, that whether a guardian of a minor can enter into a contract on bis behalf so as to bind the minor in such a manner as to be capab...
Varada Appalanaidu Vs. Bodu Annamnaidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad555
Ramesam, J.1. The suit (O.S. 661 of 1918) was by one of three reversioners (plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 for a declaration that all the three were entitled to the suit property as reversioners and for partition and for recovery of one-third share of the suit property. Issue 2 raised the question whether plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 were reversioners. Issue 4 raised the question whether plaintiff was estopped by reason of the compromise decree in a suit of 1881. These points were found against defendant 1 and the suit decreed on 7th November 1919. There was an appeal. Meanwhile defendant 3 filed a suit, O.S. 100 of 1920, for his one-third share. Defendant 1 repeated his plea of estoppel based on the decree of 1881 against this claimant also and also contended:As this plaintiff was a party to O.S. 661 of 1918 a separate suit is not maintainable,thereby implying that he can get the relief he seeks in the suit O.S. 100 of 1920 in execution of O.S. 661 of 1918. This was in March 1920. In ...
Tadi Sarareddi (Dead) and anr. Vs. Chelamcherla Brahmayya, Minor by Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ586
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The main question in this Second Appeal bears on the correct measure of damages in a case in which the defendant, as the agent of the plaintiff, unlawfully and without authority, disposes of mercantile goods belonging to the plaintiff. It has been found by the Lower Appellate Court that the disposal of the goods by the defendant was wrongful, was without authority and that this was on the 22nd August, 1920. Information of this wrongful sale appears to have been given to the plaintiff-principal on the 28th of the same month. The Lower Appellate Court has granted damages to the plaintiff-appellant on the scale of the market value of jaggery which was the merchandise concerned on or about the 28th August. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the argument has been addressed at considerable length by Mr. Lakshmanna, the learned vakil for the appellant, that the principle on which the Lower Appellate Court assessed damages payable to the p...
Pasupuleti Narayana Rao Vs. Sree Rajah Vasireddi Sree Chandra Mouleswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.366; (1928)54MLJ621
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Phillips sitting as a single Judge in S. A. No. 1867 of 1923. The plaintiff was the appellant in the second appeal and the suit from which it arose was instituted by him for ejecting the defendants from the holdings under the terms of Section 151 of the Estates Land Act. Defend ants 1 to 4 were occupancy ryots who had entered into engagements with the plaintiff landholder. The other defendants were in possession of various pieces and parts of the suit holding under sales effected by defendants 1 to 4. Those alienations by the ryots had not become recognised by the landholder under the terms of the Act. The allegations on which the plaintiff came into Court claiming to be entitled to eject the defendants were that the entire holding had been parcelled out by defendants 1 to 4 and alienated to various sets of defendants for building purposes and that the 5th defendant had put up on the portion of th...
Tadi Sarreddi and anr. Vs. Chelamcherla Brahmayya Minor by Mothers and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.153
1. The main question in this second appeal bears on the correct measure of damages in a case in which the defendant, as the agent of the plaintiff, unlawfully and without authority, disposes of mercantile goods belonging to the plaintiff. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the disposal of the goods by the defendant was wrongful, was without authority and that this was on the 22nd August, 1920. Information of this wrongful sale appears to have been given to the plaintiff-principal on the 25th of the same month. The lower Appellate Court has granted damages to the plaintiff-appellant on the sale of the market value of jaggery which was the merchandise concerned on or about, the 28th August. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the argument has been addressed at considerable length by Mr. Lakshmanna, the learned Vakil for the appellant, that the principle on which the lower Appellate Court assessed damages payable to the plaintiff was wrong. Hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »