Chennai Court December 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.
(Assan Musaliarakath) Kunhi Bava Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad226; 114Ind.Cas.234
ORDERJackson, J.1. The accused is clearly proved to have deliberately fabricated and used a false endorsement on a pro-note, for his defence in the suit upon the note, and was rightly convicted under Sections 193, 196 and 471, I.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and to a fine of Rs. 300. He did not appeal. When the statute lays down that for a certain offence, as for that under Section 471, I.P.C. or under Section 193, the punishment shall be imprisonment it means that the offender shall go to jail, and imprisonment till the rising of the Court is a clear evasion of that intention.2. Possibly in rare cases when the offence is obviously technical, a Court may be justified in taking the extreme step of evading the statute which it is appointed to administer; but on the learned Judge's own showing, this was not such a case. That the accused is a fairly respectable man, and not a hardened litigant are not (circumstances of extenuation. Nor can he be descri...
Vennal Naidu and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad307; 117Ind.Cas.800
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff does, not want to set aside the mortgages. They may be still binding on the father. The plaintiff wishes to ignore them so far as his share is concerned. If he submits to them, the value of the property minus one third of 'the mortgage amount is the value of the subject-matter of the suit or appeal. If he does not submit to them (as in this case) the value of the property without any subtraction is the value of the subject matter of the suit or appeal. I understand that the petitioner before] me (appellant in the lower Court) has paid the Court-fee as for possession of one-third share of the property without making any deduction. To ask him to pay Court-fees on the mortgages is to make him pay twice over.2. But I need not reason out the principle at this stage. The decision in Algar Ayyangar v. Srinivasa Ayyangar : AIR1925Mad1248 , has been dissented from by myself and my brother Jackson, J., in Veeraraghavilu v. Sreeramulu : AIR1928Mad816 , I adhere to the ...
Lakshmi Venkayamma Vs. Secy. of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad399
Jackson, J.1. These are five suits brought by the wife of a zamindar challenging the right of Government (the defendant) to enfranchise service inam lands, three of which relate to talayaris and two to karnams. The burden of proof has been correctly cast. The onus originally rested upon plaintiff to prove her claim. She has proved that these inams were within the ambit of the zamindari. Then it rests with the defendant to prove that they were excluded from the zamindari, and the right of enfranchisement belongs to Government.2. The documents upon which the defendant relies are mustered in para. 5 of the lower appellate Court judgment, and we agree with the lower Courts that their combined effect is to show that these inams were granted before the settlement of 1802. Particularly significant is Ex. 2-D, which shows the manyams enjoyed ' up to fasli 1212'; and there is nothing produced by plaintiff or otherwise upon the record to suggest that any inams were granted subsequent to that dat...
Sri Rajah Malraju Lakshmi Venkayamma Rao Bahadur Zemindarini Garu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.292
Jackson, J.1. These are five suits brought by the wife of a zemindar challenging the right of Government (the defendant) to enfranchise service inam lands, three of which relate to talayaris and two to karnams. The lower Courts have concurred in dismissing the suits, and plaintiff appeals.2. The burden of proof has been correctly cast. The onus originally rested upon plaintiff to prove her claim. She has proved that these inams were within the ambit of the zemindari. Then it rests with the defendant to prove that they were excluded from the zemindari, and the right of enfranchisement belongs to Government.3. The documents upon which the defendant relies are mustered in para. 5 of the lower Appellate Court judgment, and we agree with the lower Courts that their combined effect is to show that these inams were granted before the Settlement of 1802. Particularly significant is Ex. II-D which shows the manyams enjoyed 'up to Fasli 1212'; and there is nothing produced by plaintiff, or other...
K. Shunmugasundara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. S. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ476
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The petitioners brought a suit against the respondents asking for an account in respect of their trusteeship of the plaint temple. Although they asked for a general account in the plaint, eight specific charges of malversation were alleged and these charges formed the subject-matter of the trial in the first Court. Without taking a general account, the Subordinate Judge examined the evidence relating, to the eight charges and held that two charges were proved and that the other six failed. The judgment is not altogether satisfactory, for it is quite possible that, if a general account had been taken some sums of money might have been found to be due to the respondents which could have been set off against the two claims allowed. The respondents filed an appeal in respect of these two claims and the appeal was allowed in this Court. The petitioners filed a memorandum of cross-objections relating to the other six items and that was dismissed in toto. The ground for di...
P.A. Sundara Aiyar Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ373
Ramesam, J.1. These revision petitions are filed against the orders of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.P. Nos. 42 of 1927, 131 of 1926, 159, 110, 126, 55, 53, 80, 169, 24 and 70 of 1927 and 2 and 32 of 1928. The point for decision is what is the correct Court-fee payable on these petitions under Section 84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act II of 1927. Under Schedule 11 of the said Act the Court-fee on an application to modify or set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments under Section 84 (1) of the Act is the Court-fee leviable on a plaint under Article 17, Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act, 1922. The right to apply to set aside the decision was conferred by Section 84, Clause (2). When we refer to Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922, we find there are articles numbered 17, 17-A and 17-B. The first question that arises is whether 'Article 17' in the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act i...
J.P. Rego Vs. Phillip Tauro and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad371; (1929)56MLJ580
Ramesam, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit on the foot of a mortgage bond (Ex. A), dated 31st May, 1918. The amount borrowed under the bond was Rs. 5,000 and the interest was 8 per cent, per annum. The principal was payable in four instalments on the 31st May of each year beginning with 1919 and ending with 1922. It is also stipulated that on the same day the interest due on that date should be paid. Then there is the further clause:If I fail to pay to you the amount of interest payable annually and also the principal amount according to the vaidas mentioned above and keep in arrears the amount of any one of the instalments the future vaida to pay the principal amount shall become cancelled and I shall be liable to pay to you all the amounts immediately irrespective of future vaidas together with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of default of payment of the said instalment on the principal and interest of the instalment amount kept in arrears and also on all the amo...
Mannarswami Ayyar Vs. Ramaswami Nayakkan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad394
1. This civil revision petition is presented against the order of the lower appellate Court allowing execution to proceed in the following circumstances: On 29th September 1919 a money decree was passed in favour of the -three minor brothers represented by their mother as next friend. On 11th April 1921 while they were still minors, the mother put in an execution petition which seems to have been infructuous. On 14th July 1925 she put in a fresh execution petition. By that time, two of the brothers had attained majority. The judgment-debtor contended that the execution petition was barred by limitation, and that, as two of the brothers had attained majority, the eldest could give for all the three a valid discharge of the decree, and that therefore the decree-holders could not avail themselves of the provisions of Section 7, Lim. Act. Both the lower Courts have held on the authority of Lakshmanan Chetty v. Subbiah Chetty : AIR1925Mad78 that the eldest brother could not so give a discha...
V. Alagappa Chetty and Co. and ors. Vs. Roopchand Chabildass and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad685; 117Ind.Cas.136
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. Beasley, J., described this as one of the most mysterious cases he ever had tried before him. As it unfolded itself, at the trial, it may well have been so, but he, I think, has so completely solved the mystery himself that it is a mystery no longer. The facts necessary for our purposes can be summarized briefly. The plaintiffs and the defendants are both dealers in silver, the plaintiffs' place of business being in Madras and the defendants' place in Salem. The defendants from time to time telegraphed to the plaintiffs asking thorn to send them consignments of metal for the purpose of their business in Salem and they had done so for a number of years. It is in evidence that 22 such transactions relating to consignments of silver had taken place within the last few years. In each one of them, the procedure was the same. The plaintiff's on receipt of the telegram of request bought silver in the Madras market in the form of bars or ingots, cut them up and then pack...
K. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. S. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad429; 121Ind.Cas.16
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The petitioners brought a suit against the respondents asking for an account in respect of their trusteeship of the plaint temple. Although they asked for a general account in the plaint, eight specific charges of malversation were alleged and these charges formed the subject-matter of the trial in the first Court, Without taking a general account, the Subordinate Judge examined the evidence relating to the eight charges and held that two charges were proved and that the other six failed. The judgment is not altogether satisfactory for it is quite possible that, if a general account had been taken some sums of money might have been found to be due to the respondents which could have been set off against the two claims allowed. The respondents filed an appeal in respect of these two claims and the appeal was allowed in this Court. The petitioners filed a memorandum of cross-objections relating to the other six items and that was dismissed in toto. The ground for dism...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »