Chennai Court October 1928 Judgments
(Vobilineni Buchi) Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Venkata Kumara Mahipati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad416
Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapur directing that the two suits on the file of his Court, O.S. 42 of 1921 and 62 of 1921 should be posted for trial. The pleaders for the parties in these two cases had put in a petition for adjournment stating amongst other things:as both these parties have agreed to abide by the High Court's decision in these suits the trial of these suits O.S. 62 of 1921 and O.S. 42 of 1921 should be stayed.2. ('It should be noted that there has. been only one suit, A.S. 10 of 1922 which went on appeal and not ' suits '). The following order was made on that petition:Time may be granted till the decision of the High Court on the issue whether the suit land forms part of the plaintiff's zamindari is given.3. An endorsement was made on the same day, 'suit will be adjourned. Petition closed.' On 11th January 1927 the suit was called on and the plaintiff wanted to adduce evidence. The defendant opposed this s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Suban Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ595
Waller, J.1. The four petitioners with another person not before me were charged before the Town Sub-Magistrate, Trichinopoly, with offences under Sections 147, 323, 379 and 426, Indian Penal Code. The last witness was examined by him on 7th October, 1927. He then wrote out a long order finding the petitioners and the other man guilty of offences under Sections 147, 323 and 426, Indian Penal Code. Having arrived at that conclusion, he proceeded to record evidence which proved that two of the petitioners had previously been convicted of breach of the peace, had been bound over to keep the peace for a year and had broken their bonds. On the strength of this evidence, he sent up the case to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, being of opinion that two of the petitioners should receive a severer sentence than he could impose and that the other two should be bound over to keep the peace. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, after considering the evidence, convicted the petitioners of rioting and other...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad285
Waller, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of house-breaking and theft. As-far as I can see, there is no evidence-whatever against him except two confessional statements made by his co-accused at the trial. It is argued that such statements are not convered by Section 30,. Evidence Act and should therefore not have been taken into consideration against him. On this point the High Court of Madras is in direct conflict with the High Court of Allahabad. Ayling, J., In re-Bali Reddi [1915] 38 Mad. 302 held that there was no-reason why confessional statements made at the trial itself should not be taken into consideration under Section 30, Evidence Act. Walsh, J., in Emperor v. Mahadev Prasad A.I.R. 1923 All. 322 thought that what that section contemplated was formal proof by the prosecution of a confession made before the trial. The same view was expressed obiter by Garth, C.J., in Empress v. Ashutosh Chuokerburtty [1879] 4 Cal. 483. With great respect, I think that this construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Shaik MoidIn Vs. Kunhadevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad33; 126Ind.Cas.111
ORDER1. This is obviously a vexatious proceeding brought to unable the father to get out of his obligations under an order for maintenance to which he himself consented. It is quite true that after a time prima facie in the eye of the law he is the natural guardian and custodian of the person of his child. But it has been the law for a very long time both in England and in this country that what a Court has to look to on applications under habeas corpus is the interest of the child as being paramount. In this case there is nothing to show that the father is in a position to look after the child--I do not say anything at all against his character--but the fact remains that he has got a wife married before he married the mother of the child and that that wife apparently, assuming that she is quite willing to treat her step-children properly, is constantly away. What is the result during those periods? The petitioner is a man who earns his livelihood by driving a motor car which means he ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govinda Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.512
ORDERWaller, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of house breaking and theft. As far as I can see, there is no evidence whatever against him except two confession al statements made by his co-accused at the trial. It is argued that such statements are not covered by a. 30 of the Evidence Act and should, therefore, not have been taken into consideration against him. On this point the High Court of Madras is in direct conflict with the High, Court of Allahabad. Ayling, J., in In Re: Vempalli Bali Reddy 22 Ind. Cas. 157 : 38 M. 302 : 14 M.L.T. 453 : 15 Cri.L.J. 13 held that there was no reason why confessional statements made at the trial itself should not be taken into consideration under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Walsh, J., in Mahadeo Prasad v. Emperor : AIR1923All322 thought that what that section contemplated was formal proof by the prosecution of a confession made before the trial. The same view was expressed obiter by Garth, C.J., in Empress v. Ashootosh Chuckerbutty 4 C. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Kani Rowthan Vs. Mahomed Meera Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad189; (1929)56MLJ99
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance regarding the purchasers' lien under Section 55(6), (b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff agreed to purchase certain immoveable properties from the first three defendants. At that time, the properties belonged jointly to six persons, namely, defendants 1 to 6. The price settled was Rs. 500 and a part payment of Rs. 200 was made. The three persons who were parties to the agreement (defendants 1 to 3) undertook to get a conveyance executed by themselves as well as the other three part owners. A sum of Rs. 200 was provided as liquidated damages in the event of default on either side. It was further stipulated that the agreement was to be carried out within five months from its date (Ex. A, dated 9th April, 1920). The promisors did not carry out their part and on the 6th September, 1920, the plaintiff sent a notice (Ex. I) to one of the executants in which it was stated:If you fail at the sight of this not...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.V. Krishna Aiyar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ151
1. This is a reference put up by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66 of the Act. The question on which our opinion is asked is whether in such circumstances as this case discloses the assessees were entitled to be registered under Rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act. I will briefly summarise what the material circumstances are in this case. The original partnership was entered into by a deed on the 3rd' November, 1927, the contracting parties being Venkatarama Aiyar & Sons of the one part and D. Krishnaswami Aiyangar of the other, The business they carried on was that of silk merchants and the term of the partnership deed was expressed to be for five years, so that it expired on the 3rd of November, 1922. On the 31st of August, 1923, a new partnership deed Came into effect for a period of three years, so that it would expire on the 31st of August, 1926. In fact, the business was continued thereafter by the partners as before for ought we know down to this day. A return...
Tag this Judgment!Alagarsami Naidu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Ramanathan Chetti, Minor by Senio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad284; (1929)56MLJ399
1. The Lower Court has held that the claim is not barred by limitation. If the payee under the promissory note is the minor plaintiff, no question of limitation arises. The question therefore is, who is the payee under the note in question, Lakshmanan Chetti, the guardian, or Ramanathan Chetti, the minor? ....The promissory note so far as it is material to the present purpose runs thus:Promissory note executed on the 14th January, 1920, to Lakshmanan Chetti, son of the senior paternal uncle of and guardian of minor Ramanathan Chetti...deducting Rs. 300 paid in respect of the promissory note executed by me to Subramanian Chetti, guardian of the said Ramanathan Chetti...the amount to be paid by me is Rs. 510.2. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar, the appellant's learned Advocate contends that the real payee under this note is Lakshmanan Chetti. The question is, on a fair construction of this document, in whose favour was it executed? Is Lakshmanan Chetti the payee, the words' following his name bein...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyumma and ors. Vs. Andu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad145
1. The question to be decided is, whether the suit is. barred under Article 134, Lim. Act. The plaintiff seeks to redeem a mortgage made in 1865, It was created by the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of one Kunhammu, defendant 1's father. The properties mortgaged changed hands until finally they passed to the defendant 2 under a sale-deed of 1894 (Ex. 4). The mortgagee in his very first dealing with these properties treated them as belonging to himself, In each of the documents that followed, the recitals that were made 'were consistent with this position, The learned Subordinate Judge has found, upon a scrutiny of these documents, that defendant 2 had reason to believe, and in fact believed, that his vendor was absolutely entitled to the properties. If that be so, the inference is reasonable, that what he intended to purchase was an absolute property and not merely the interest of the mortgagee : see the judgment of Bakewell, J., in Muthaya v. Kanthappa : (1918)34MLJ431 . We ma...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyumma and ors. Vs. Andu Alias Abdulla Beari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.149
1. The question to be decided is whether the suit is barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff seeks to redeem a mortgage made in 1865. It was created by the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of one Kunhammu, the 1st defendant's father. The properties mortgaged changed hands until finally they passed to the 2nd defendant under a sale-deed of 1894 (Ex. 4). The mortgagee in his very first dealing with these properties treated them as belonging to himself. In each of the documents that followed, the recitals that were made were consistent with this position. The learned Subordinate Judge has found, upon a scrutiny of these documents, that the 2nd defendant had reason to believe, and in fact believed, that his vendor was absolutely entitled to the properties. If that be so, the inference is reasonable that what he intended to purchase was an absolute property and not merely the interest of the mortgagee [See the judgment of Bakewell, J., in Muthaya Shetti v. K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »