Chennai Court August 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.
Kode Atohayya Vs. Kosaraju Narahari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.747
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Guntur under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) directing the appellants to hand over to the respondent his male child aged 4 years. The respondent is the father of the child and the appellant is its maternal grandfather. The material facts of the case are these. The child's mother died about three years ago. From the time she gave birth to the child she was ailing from some disease and it was thought advisable in the interests of the child that it should be separated from the mother. The child was, therefore, left under the care of the appellant and his wife who have since brought it up. The respondent married a second wife sometime after the death of the child's mother and his second wife is living with him. Besides her, he has a widowed sister who is also living with him as a member of his family. His case is that he requested the appellant to send bach the child to his custody as he was desi...
S.M. Savithri Bayi and ors. Vs. Kottayi Achutan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.167
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut remanding O.S. No. 373 of 1924 to tae District, Munsif of Vayitri for disposal.2. The 9th respondent in appeal who is the legal representative of the 1st defendant is the appellant. The facts relating to this remand are these: The 1st defendant, the kanomdar of a house site, had demised it to the 3rd defendant; the latter built a house on it and hypothecated it to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant brought a suit, O.S. No. 464 of 1922 upon the hypothecation bond, obtained a decree and in execution of it purchased the house himself. When he tried to obtain delivery of possession of the house he was obstructed by the plaintiffs in the present suit who stated that the house was built with the tarward fund of the plaintiffs and of the 3rd defendant, and not by the 3rd defendant alone out of his own funds. The 1st defendant then applied for the removal of the obstruction in M.P. No. 905 of ...
V.V. Subramiah Chetty and Three ors. Vs. Nataraja Pillai and Seven ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ468
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs claiming to be trustees of the charities founded by one Calve Sadasiva Chetti by his will, dated the 25th of July, 1889, and Codicil, dated the 20th of May, 1891, for a declaration that the first three plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to the properties mentioned in the plaint and that the defendants have no manner of right thereto, and other reliefs.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that Item 1 of the plaint schedule property belonged to Vasavambammal, widow of Calve Sadasiva Chetti, that she died issueless and intestate, that the 4th plaintiff succeeded to the properties as the next reversioner, that he by a deed transferred the properties to the trustees constituted by the will of Sadasiva Chetti and that the plaintiffs are thus entitled to the properties.3. Various defences have been raised by the defendants. They deny that Sadasiva Chetti left : a will and codicil. They say that even if he lelft a will and codicil, they ar...
In Re: Muthukaruppa Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ626
ORDERReilly, J.1. It is alleged by the petitioner, and his allegation is supported by the pleaders who appeared before the Sub-Magistrate and is not denied by the Public Prosecutor, that, when at the conclusion of the evidence the petitioner's pleader wished to argue the case for his client, the Sub-Magistrate refused to hear him.2. The petitioner had a right to be heard through the pleader who was defending him, and the Magistrate's denial of that right to him cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity, as is suggested for the Public Prosecutor.3. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The case will be re-tried by such Magistrate as the District Magistrate directs.4. The petitioner will remain on bail as at present....
Ramammal Vs. Vijayaraghavalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1928
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.530; (1932)63MLJ867
ORDER1. This petition is withdrawn. We very much regret to come to the conclusion that we have no power to grant costs proprio motu. In some ways perhaps it is to be regretted that we have not because a lot of these applications are so thoroughly frivolous - I do not say anything about this one - that I think that the losers ought to' be penalised for vexatious proceedings. However, costs are a creature of statute or statutory rules and in the absence of either in this case, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction to award costs....
In Re: Munshi Abdul Wahab Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ277
ORDERReilly, J.1. The two petitioners have been convicted of working a ferry in contravention of Section 9 of the Canals and Public Ferries Act, 1890, and their convictions have been upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge of West Godavari. The case against the petitioners is that on 20th November, 1926 they carried passengers on the steam launch 'Moulana' across a channel, that is, the Vasistha Godavari River, within the notified limits of a ferry declared by the Government under Section 8 of the Act to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Ex. A, dated 30th December, 1895, has been produced as the notification of the Government, declaring the ferry under the name of the 'The Narsapur Steam Ferry' to be subject to the provisions of the Act and purporting to fix its limits. It is argued for the petitioners (1) that this notification of the Government was ultra vires, and (2) that the petitioners did not work a ferry within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act.2. The Act is not very e...
Munshi Abdul Wahab Sahib and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad50; 117Ind.Cas.728
ORDERReilly, J.1. The two petitioners have been convicted of working a ferry in contravention of Section 9 of the Canals and Public Ferries Act, 18S0, and their convictions have been upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge of West Godavari. The case against the petitioners is that on 20th November, 1926, they carried passengers on the steam launch 'Maulana' across a channel, that is the Vasistha Godavari River, within the notified limits of a ferry declared by the Government under Section 8 of the Act to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Exhibit A, dated 30th December, 1895, has been produced as the notification of the Government, declaring the ferry under the name of the 'The Narsapur Steam Ferry' to be subject to the provisions of the Act and purporting to fix its limits. It is argued for the petitioners (1) that this notification of the Government was ultra vires and (2) that the petitioners did not work a ferry within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act.2. The Act is not ver...
China Alagumperumal Karayalar Vs. Vinayagathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad110; 117Ind.Cas.731; (1928)55MLJ861
1. The suit is for a declaration that the sale of the plaint property to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff's mother during her minority is not binding on her and for its possession. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and the 1st defendant has preferred this appeal. The facts are these. One Muthukrishna Karayalar of Padmanabhamangalam village in Srivaikuntam Taluk, Tinnevelly District, died in March, 1915 leaving him surviving the plaintiff, his wife, a minor aged 15 years. On the 2nd June, 1915, the plaintiff's mother as protector and guardian of the plaintiff executed a sale-deed, Ex. XV, in favour of the 1st defendant, the divided step-brother of the plaintiff's husband, conveying all the properties inherited from the husband, except a small portion, for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to various creditors including the 1st defendant. On the 15th June, 1915, the 1st defendant executed what is called an indemnity bond, but in reality a security bond, Ex. XXIX, in favour ...
Krishna Aiyar Vs. Muthuswami thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad84; 117Ind.Cas.789
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that the civil revision petition does not lie as a second appeal lies. The petition before me is by the auction purchaser and not the judgment-debtor or decree-bolder. So the second appeal does not lie though the appeal to the Court below was under Section 47, (Civil P.C. Act 5 of 1908). I overruled the preliminary objection.2. On the merits this is not a case for interference under Section 115, Civil P.C., Act 5 of 1908. The proceedings after the attachment of the debt are so grossly irregular that the order of the District Judge is the only order that can be made on the facts. The lower Court's order takes note of the interests of the petitioner and sufficiently protects them. The fact that the auction-purchaser files this petition adds to the suspicion smelt in the judgment of the lower Court. The sentence in the judgment of the lower Court 'he has since collected the decree debt from them in another manner' is not intelligible and the ...
Ratansi D. Morarji Vs. the Administrator-general
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ478
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises questions of great importance:(1) Is it open to a lady of European origin to become a Hindu by conversion?(2) Is her marriage, after such conversion, with a Hindu gentleman, Bhatia by caste, valid?2. The facts of the case are interesting. Mena Renda was of Austrian origin and domiciled in Great Britain. She was a Theosophist and a Hindu by conviction. She was further a vegetarian and has been described as having been practically a Hindu in all her habits of life. She was living in India for several years, about 12 or 13, and then expressed a desire to be formally converted to the Hindu faith. There was a Society founded in Bombay in 1917 known as the Hindu Missionary Society. Its object was to perform 'Sudhi,' that is to say, convert people of other faiths and admit them into the Hindu fold. On the 21st of May, 1922, at her request, this Society performed the ceremony of conversion. She changed her name and adopted a Hindu name, viz., Sulochana. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »