Chennai Court March 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.
Syed HussaIn Vs. C.S. Munirathnam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad489a
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction under Section 65 (2), City Municipal Act of 1919 by the Presidency Magistrate. The appellant went to the polling station on 17th September 1927 and applied for a slip as evidence of his being a voter. The process that is adopted in these elections is that a voter first goes to an officer who looks into the voter's list to see whether the person before him is a voter and on being satisfied that he is a voter notes on a piece of paper his number in the list and hands it over to him and with this slip he goes into the room where there is the polling officer, who on seeing the slip and on satisfying himself that he is a voter, gives him a ballot paper which he takes into cubicle for the purpose of voting. The appellant appeared before the officer whose duty it was to identify him in order to get a slip for applying for a ballot paper. When he was before the identifying officer, a dispute arose as to whether he was a voter or not and t...
Krishnaswami Asari and anr. Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.762
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed to set aside a decree passed by consent and for partition of the suit property and for half share in the property. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the daughters of one Mookan Asari who left a widow named Chinnammal. The plaintiff's case is that the decree in O.S. No. 1264 of 1915, the file of the District Munsifs Court of Kulitalai which was a decree passed on a compromise entered into between Chinnammal and 1st and 2nd defendants and the present plaintiff is not binding on her; that Chinnammal had only a widow's estate in the suit lands which were the property of Mookan Asari and that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the daughters entitled to equal shares. The District Munsif held that there was no fraud so far as the decree was concerned and that it was binding on the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for one-half of the property. On appeal the Subo...
In Re: S. Vijayaraghavachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.365
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceedings now pending before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmapuri. In order to understand the contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to mention a few facts. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri was informed by a mother and daughter of the commission of serious offences. He sent the daughter to the Medical Officer and on the 24th November he took a sworn statement from the mother and from the daughter. He forwarded the complaint of the daughter to the Sub Magistrate, Dharmapuri, on the 24th, as he thought that an offence or offences triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions were disclosed in the sworn statement. He took the mother's case on his file and issued bailable warrants to the accused. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate who happened to go to Salem on some business mentioned to the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police about the complaint made to him by the mother and the daughte...
Avadai Ammal (Died) Her Legal Representative Is Sundayee Ammal Vs. Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad772; (1928)55MLJ497
ORDER1. Respondent contends that, as this is an appeal in a matter in execution, the appeal became incompetent when appellant died on 16th November, 1926, and that the ruling of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi I.L.R. (1926) M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 will preclude the maintainability of the appeal, and that the present petitioner's remedy is by way of a fresh execution petition. The ruling in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi I.L.R. (1926) M. 1 51 M.L.J. 745 did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and there are obvious difficulties, e.g., questions of limitation, the maintainability of successive applications, etc., which will arise if the ruling is applied to cases of appeal.2. We are not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case and see no reason why the ordinary procedure relating to appeals when an appellant dies should not apply.3. We reject the objection. The trial Court has held that petitioner is the le...
(Kanchumarthi) Latchayya and anr. Vs. (Kuntamukkala) Suryaprakasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1165
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are: The plaintiff in O.S. No. 121 of 1917 on the tile of the District Munsif's Court, Peddapur, obtained, on 1st September 1919, a decree for possession of eight items of land and for past mesne profits for two years on all the items jointly at Rs. 280 a year. The decree left future mesne profits to be determined in execution. Against this decree the defendants appealed. The appellate Court on 30th April 1920 struck out item 8 from the decree and as in consequence of that the matter of mesne profits required re-adjustment, it directed that the plaintiff could by a petition apply for ascertainment of the mesne profits over seven items. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 25th April 1923. Meantime in 1922 the plaintiff had applied to the trial Court by way of execution petition -E. P. No. 275 of 1921, for ascertainment of future mesne profits, having, already for the past mesne profits withdrawn a sum of R...
Narasimhalu Naidu Vs. Naina Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad7
Jackson, J.1. Suit for Rs. 480-5-0 due on a pronote executed by defendant 1 to plaintiff's assignor, defendant 2. The lower Court dismissed the suit and plaintiff petitions in revision.2. The plaintiff had filed a complaint alleging criminal misappropriation as part of the offence of criminal breach of trust against defendant 1. Thereupon defendant 1 executed a pronote to defendant 2 which she assigned to plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge finds this to be a contract against public policy, and has dismissed the suit. The facts are to be found in Ex. C, the letter given by defendant 1 to the plaintiff to this effect:You have complained against me for breach of trust to pay off the amount due to you.... I have caused to be transferred to you a bond (the suit pro-note)...If there is breach of faith I subject myself to criminal punishment.3. And the letter from defendant 2, Ex. B is to the same effect.4. There is nothing against public policy if a person accused of breach of trust or...
Avadau Ammal (Dead) Through Her Legal Representative Sundayee Ammal Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.662
ORDERRespondent contends that, as this is an appeal in a matter in execution the appeal became incompetent when appellant died on 16th November 1926 and that the ruling of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliamma Achi (1) will preclude the maintainability of the appeal, and that the present petitioner's remedy is by way of a fresh execution petition. The ruling in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliamma Achi 99 Ind. Cas. 627 ; 50 M. 1 ; 51 M.L.J. 745 ; (1926) M.W.N. 981 ; A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 184 ; 25 L.W. 354 did not relate to the case of an appeal against an order in execution, and there are obvious difficulties, e.g., questions of limitation, the maintainability of successive applications etc., which will arise if the ruling is applied to cases of appeal.We are not prepared to extend the application of the ruling to the present case and see no reason why the ordinary procedure relating to appeals, when an appellant dies should not apply.We repel the objection. The trial Court has held th...
Sri Sri Sri Pattarani Purnachendra Mala Jamna Devi Morima Garu Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.560
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Ganjam in Appeal Suit No. 51 of 1926 dismissing her suit against the respondent the President of the Taluk Board of Chicacole.2. The petitioner was assessed to profession tax from 1921 to 1923 and sued to recover the amount collected under that assessment Rs. 440-2-0 on the ground that as a matter of fact she had not practised any profession for that period within the limits of the Taluk Board.3. The learned District Judge has held that the petitioner's suit is barred by the provision of Section 228 (2) Madras Local Boards Act 1920. 'No suit shall be brought in any Court to recover any sum of money collected under the authority of this Act...provided that the provisions of this Act have been in substance and in effect complied with.'4. The provisions for collecting profession tax will be found in Section 93 and Schedule IV of the Act. The Local Board prepares and keeps books showing the persons li...
R. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. M. Dasaratharama Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad198; 113Ind.Cas.336; (1929)56MLJ33
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The point raised in this case is that there was forcible dispossession, according to the petitioner on the 1st June, 1927, and according to the Sub-divisional Magistrate there was dispossession early in May, within two months of the presentation of this petition; but the Magistrate has 'found against the* petitioner on the ground that the forcible dispossession was more than two months before the date of his preliminary order. He has not definitely found whether there was or there was not forcible dispossession. The counter-petitioner's title to the property was under a sale-deed obtained by him on 31st May, 1927. He could not have had possession before that. If the Magistrate finds there was forcible dispossession, then he would have to see whether the 1st proviso to Clause 4 of Section 145 is applicable to the case. The question he has to consider is this : When a person complains to the Magistrate is of forcible dispossession within a few days after the disposses...
Machanjeeri Ahmed Vs. K. Govinda Prabhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.227; (1928)55MLJ661
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge in Small Cause No. 732 of 1926. The contention for the petitioner is that the suit is barred by limitation and that Section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not apply to this case. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred inasmuch as the insolvency proceedings were pending at the time of the suit. The question is whether a person who brings a suit against an insolvent during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings is entitled to the benefit of Section 78. Section 78 says:Where an order of adjudication has been annulled under this Act, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application for the execution of a decree (other than a suit or application in respect of which the leave of the Court was obtained under Sub-section (2) of Section 28) which might have been brought or made but for the making of an order of adjudication under this Act, the period fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »