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.
In Re: Mottaya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.787; (1929)56MLJ103
Wallace, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Madura in a jury case before him. The offence charged was dacoity, six persons being accused. The jury returned an unanimous verdict of gulty against accused 1 to 3 and a majority verdict of 3 to 2 guilty against accused 4 to 6. With the latter verdict the Assistant Sessions Judge disagrees on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable and perverse, and he states further that, if that verdict is set aside, it implies that accused 4 to 6 were not present, whence it would follow that only three persons took part in the so-called dacoity and therefore the conviction of accused 1 to 3 must be reduced to that for an offence of robbery.2. We have been taken through the evidence and the charge. As regards the latter I am of opinion that both the prosecution and the defence have much to complain of, as the charge is very defective in many points. It does not, for example, in t...
Janapareddi Venkatareddi Vs. Janapareddi Adhinarayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ357
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on a reference to him under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts are as follows: The Special Deputy Collector, Harbour Acquisition, Vizagapatam, made his award on 18th January, 1925. As to the apportionment of one of the amounts he awarded, there was a dispute between two claimants. Without deciding their claims he referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30. The amount in dispute which was referred to the Subordinate Judge's Court was Rs. 1,349. A preliminary objection is raised by the vakil for the respondent that this appeal does not lie to the High Court but to the District Court of Vizagapatam. We think this objection is well founded. After a reference under Section 30 is made to the Civil Court, the decision of the Court cannot be regarded as an award under Part III of the Act. In the case reported in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao their Lordships of the Pri...
ismail Bibi Ammal Vs. Moideen Abdul Kadir Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad273; 113Ind.Cas.296
Walsh, J.1. The petitioner, plaintiff in the case, sued to recover rent from the defendants and possession of the property. Owing to the defence set up in the written statement, the petitioner asked for leave to amend the plaint by adding also a prayer for declaration of title on paying the necessary Court-fees. This petition was refused by the District Munsif and this civil revision petition is filed against his order. The District Munsif says as follows:The application is opposed. It is urged that the amendment now prayed for would change the character of the suit and that this application should not therefore be allowed at this late stage in the suit.2. It has been held in several cases that a suit for rent on the basis of a lease should not be allowed to be converted into a suit for declaration of ownership : vide Bai Shri Majirajbai v. Maganlal Bhaishankar [1895] 19 Bom. 303. It has been held that when a plaintiff bases a claim on a specific legal relationship between him and the ...
In Re: Molaiappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ715
ORDERWallace, J.1. Several points of law have been raised in this Criminal Revision case. The petitioner was charged on the complaint of the Local Fund Overseer, Dharapuram, with an offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code of causing a public nuisance by allowing prickly pear to spread from his own property on to the public road. He was convicted and fined, and now applies for revision of the conviction.2. The first point argued was that the property from which the prickly pear spread is not his but his brother's. It is clear from the evidence including that of the defence witness that, although the property is in the actual enjoyment of his brother, both he and his brother are undivided and therefore both arc still joint owners. A joint owner is responsible in law for nuisances caused by his property.3. The next point is that the act or omission is not a public nuisance, the argument being, that it is the duty of the Local Board and not of the owner of the adjoining property...
Akkali Thiruvengadam Mammad Vs. Chathamkara Ammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad89; 114Ind.Cas.230
Wallace, J.1. This second appeal arises under the following circumstances : The plaintiff who is a junior member of a tar-wad sued to have a declaration that the decree in A.S. No 138 of 1917 passed against the 5th defendant as karnavan of the tarwad is not binding on him, and for an injunction restraining the decree-holders from executing it. At one stage the plaintiff maintained that defendant 5 was not karnavan at the time of the decree, but that position he gave up subsequently. His main contention is that, as the karnavan did not contest the appeal, the tarwad was not represented; if that argument is not accepted, he contends that the karnavan was so grossly negligent that the decree must be held to be not binding on the tarwad. Both the lower Courts dismissed his case and he appeals.2. The appellate judgment in A.S. No. 138 of 1917 was passed in appeal against the judgment in O.S. No 153 of 1915, That suit was by certain melcharthdars from one Achotti to recover the paramba from ...
Thogarchedu Kakamma Vs. Thogarchedu Chandrasekhara Somayajulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad205
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the order of the District Judge of Kurnool remanding O.S. No. 486 of 1924 to the District Munsif for disposal on the merits. The respondents, viz., the plaintiffs have taken the preliminary objection that under Order 43, Rule 1 Clause (u) read with Order 41, Rule 23, no appeal lies against the order of the District Judge on the ground that the case was disposed of by the District Munsif on the merits and not on a 'preliminary point.' The plaintiffs' suit was for the recovery of the amount of a policy in the Oriental Life Assurance Company, Bombay, held by the deceased husband of the defendant, who was their brother. They alleged that their brother was educated up to the Intermediate class at the family expense and that his earnings as a teacher Which he was able to make result of this education and which he had invested in the Life Assurance Company became property that was partible against the members of this family...
Y. Desi Chettiar Vs. J.K. Chinnasami Chettiar, President, Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1271; 113Ind.Cas.874; (1929)56MLJ162
ORDER1. The petitioner applies for a writ of certiorari to stay an election of members for the Union Panchayat, Kaveripatnam, which was fixed by the President to take place on 31st May, 1928. On the petition he obtained a temporary order of stay and the petition has now been argued before us on the merits.2. The allegations on which the application is based are shortly that on 2nd May, 1928, the President issued a notice for the election to be held and fixed 14th May, 1928 for nominations. The petitioner and some others were nominated. On 14th May, 1928 a new final electoral roll was published which omitted the petitioner's name apparently on the ground that he had not paid his taxes. The day fixed for the scrutiny of nominations was 17th May, 1928. On that day the President scrutinised the nominations on the footing of the new electoral roll and rejected the petitioner's nomination as he was not on the roll. Petitioner maintains that the publication of the new electoral roll was not d...
In Re: Pedda Tirumalingadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ194
ORDERMurray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. In this case two men who are brothers were tried for the murder of a man called Narasingadu on/the 21st October last. The motive for the murder is plain enough. The elder brother, the 1st accused, had obviously been engaged in traffic in illicitly distilled arrack. The deceased man who was an official and not a mere intermeddler with other people's affairs gave information some time in September that the 1st accused was engaged in this illicit business. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Mr. Luke, searched the 1st accused's house and found in it quite a substantial quantity of illicitly distilled arrack. For that the 1st accused was prosecuted and convicted and the case was pending at the time of this man's murder. He disappeared on the afternoon of the 21st which was a Friday. The 2nd accused is alleged to have had a separate sexual motive but, in view of the fact that he and his brother were both seen on the scene of the murder standing by ...
Chinnaswamy Kavirayer Vs. Periathambi Butler
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad811; 117Ind.Cas.790
Mackay, J.1. This is a petition in which it is sought to set aside an order directing a sale in execution made ex parte in a Small Cause Suit. The date of decree was 16th February 1920, of the prior application in execution 3rd February 1923, and of the present application 22nd November 1926. Prima facie it is barred unless a payment of Rs. 50 credited on 15th April 1925, was made towards interest, as such, that is to say, wholly or in part towards interest.2. The first point taken is that the payment was not certified under Order 21, Rule 2. There is, however, no difficulty as to this, for there is nothing in Order 21, Rule 2, which prescribes a time within which the payment should be certified; a statement made by a decree-holder in his application for execution may be accepted as a certificate: Masilhamani Mudaliar v. Sethuswami Iyer [1917] 41 Mad. 251. In an affidavit in this case the decree-holder averred that this money had been received from the defendant (petitioner) ' towards ...
In Re: Pedda Tirumaligadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.135
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. In this case, two men who are brothers were tried for the murder of a man called Narsingadu on the 21st October last. The motive for the murder is plain enough. The elder brother, the 1st accused, had obviously been engaged in traffic in illicitly distilled arrack. The deceased man who was an official and not a mere intermeddler with other people's affairs gave information some time in September, that the 1st accused was engaged in this illicit business. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Mr. Luke, searched the 1st accused's house and found in it quite a substantial quantity of illicitly distilled arrack. For that the 1st accused was prosecuted and convicted and the case was pending at the time of this man's murder. He disappeared on the afternoon of the 21st which was a Friday. The 2nd accused is alleged to have had a separate sexual motive but in view of the fact that he and his brother were both, seen on the scene of the murder standing by the dead man's b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »