Chennai Court September 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.
Raja Vijaya Kumara Viswanatha Bangaru Thirumalai Souri Naicker Vs. Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad234
1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree made by the respondent decree-holder in O.S. No. 173 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Madura. The decree was against three defendants of whom defendant 2 is the appellant before us. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder attached and brought to sale defendant 2's share in the village of Vellikurichi. He objected to the sale by means of a petition, in para. 3 of which he stated that the village of Vellikurichi has been held to be inalienable' and impartible (2) Thirumalai Naick v. B. Thirumalai Souri Naick [1898] 21 Mad. 310 and the same cannot possibly be attached and sold. The process of sale is clearly illegal and opposed to the incidents of the grant. The District Munsif held that his share was attachable and ordered the sale thereof. On appeal against, the order preferred by defendant 2, the learned Subordinate Judge held that only the appellant's shar...
Tirumala Chhtti Rangayya Vs. Kandalla Srinivasa Raghava-charlu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.753
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The agreement was executed by the 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother, the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant was the divided brother of the plaintiff and the two brothers were on bad terms for sometime. He obtained a sale deed from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 6th January, 1921, (Ex. VII). The plaintiff alleges that this sale-deed was obtained with the knowledge of plaintiff's agreement, which is Ex. A dated the 25th December, 1920. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the undivided sons of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant died during the tendency of the case in the Court below. The Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance, but gave him a decree for refund of the advance of Rs. 2,500 which was received by the 1st defendant at the time of the plaintiff's agreement, with interest. The plaintiff appeals.2. The 3rd defendant ...
In Re: Yerneni Satyanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.834
Reilly, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Kistna under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, that a complaint would be made against the appellant. The order which so far as the appellant is concerned, consists of two sentences, is, in my opinion, clearly insufficient. It contains no finding, as required by Section 476, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into the alleged offences nor any suggestion of reasons for such a finding. The order is one subject to appeal, and it is clearly necessary that the finding and the reasons for it should be set out. It is suggested for the Public Prosecutor that these defects in the learned Judge's order are made goad by the argumentative complaint which he sent to the Magistrate. I do not agree that such defects in the order can be made good by the complaint, and a discussion of the reasons for the order is obviously out of place in the complaint. I may add that the complain...
Watrap S. Subramania Aiyar, High Court Vakil and ors. Vs. the United I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1215; 114Ind.Cas.636; (1928)55MLJ385
Beasley, J.1. The plaintiffs are advocates of this High Court and the 1st defendant is an Insurance Company with its registered office in Madras and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants are directors of the 1st defendant company, the 2nd defendant being its chairman. The 8th defendant is a firm of merchants, of which the 7th defendant is a member and is the managing agent of the 1st defendant Insurance Company. The plaintiffs bring this suit (1) for a declaration that they were validly elected 'Policy-holders' Directors' of the 1st defendant company for the year 1928, (2) for a declaration that the 1st defendant company has no power to nominate Policy-holders' Directors for the year 1928, (3) for an injunction against all the defendants restraining them from excluding the plaintiffs or in any way restraining or interfering with the plaintiffs acting or attending as Directors of the 1st defendant company, and (4) for an injunction against all the defendants from making any fur...
Kidambi Sambamurthi Aiyar Vs. E. Ramakrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad43; 114Ind.Cas.847; (1928)55MLJ837
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Jackson, J., in appeal against the order of the District Court of Madura in C.M.A. No. 201 of 1926, which was preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, dated 7th August, 1926 in M.P. No. 223 of 1925. The original order granted an extension of the time during which to apply for discharge under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On appeal to the District Court this order was reversed. The appeal against the order of the District Court is laid to the High Court. Mr. Justice Jackson held that no appeal lay evidently under Section 75(2). Section 75 (2) runs as follows:Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a Subordinate Court, may appeal to the High Court.2. This order is one made under Schedule I and quite obviously on the terms of this section there is no second ap...
Ruppa Balusamy Ayyar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad188
ORDERReilly, J.1. I do not agree with the contention that the warrant of distraint was illegal because it was not addressed to P.W. 1 by his personal name. It was addressed to him as 'Warrant Officer, 3rd Division,' and, though that is not a title appearing in the Act, [The Act referred is Madras District Municipalities Act-Ed.] there is no doubt that it was sufficient to identify P.W. 1 clearly. Nor do I agree with the contention that the distraint of the anda was illegal because P.W. 1 did not seize it with his own hands but directed P.W. 2, his peon, to take it. The fact that Section 353, I. P.C. was not mentioned in the complaint is immaterial, as the facts alleged disclosed an offence punishable under that section. The only important point raised is that the anda was not an article which could legally be distrained, as it comes within the classification of tools of an artisan in Section 60, Civil P.C. This point was not raised in the original or appellate Court, and, although an a...
In Re: Ruppa Balusawmy Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.566
ORDERReilly, J.1. I do not agree with the contention that the warrant of distraint was illegal because it was not addressed to P.W. No. 1 by his personal name. It was addressed to him as 'Warrant Officer Third Division' and though that is not a title appearing in the Act, there is no doubt that it was sufficient to identify P.W. No. 1 clearly. Nor do I agree with the contention that the distraint of the and a was illegal because P.W. No. 1 did not seize it with his own hands but directed P.W. No. 2, his peon, to take it. The fact that Section 353, Indian Penal Code, was not mentioned in the complaint is immaterial, as the facts alleged disclosed an offence punishable under that section. The only important point raised is that the and a was not an article which could legally be distrained, as it comes within the classification of 'tools of an artizan' in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This point was not raised in the Original or Appellate Court, and although an and a is said...
Perianna Muthirian Vs. M. Vengu Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad21; (1929)56MLJ208
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. These are respectively a Criminal Revision Petition and a Criminal Appeal arising out of certain proceedings (M.C. No. 24 of 1926) under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, taken before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Musiri. The petitioner and appellant here, Perianna Muthirian, alleged possession of the immoveable property in dispute as lessee of certain persons holding it as trust property. His possession was challenged by the agents and lessee of one P. M. A. Muthia Chetti, who had purchased the land at a Court sale. For the purpose of these proceedings it is unnecessary to enter more fully into the circumstances leading up to the possession case. The petitioner impleaded as counter-petitioners in that case eight persons, of whom only the first two need be here mentioned, Narayanaswami Aiyar described as an agent of the Chetti, and Kothandapani Nadan, the Chetti's lessee. The petitioner's case was that on 5th June, 1926, Narayanaswami Aiyar came to the land ...
Sundara Bhattar Vs. Munusami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad751
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of O.S. No. 25 of 1919 and O.S. No. 246 of 1921 on the file of the District Muasif of Conjeeveram which were tried together and raise the question whether alienation of the murai (turn), of one Ekambara Bhattar in the Sthanika office in Sri Ekambaranatha Swami Temple in favour of a female, i.e., the grandmother of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 246 of 1921 is valid.2. The facts are briefly these : The plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1919 alleged that Ekambara Bhattar usufructuarily mortgaged his murai to one Subba Gurukkal in 1863 for Rs. 400, that Subba Gurukkal sub-mortgaged it to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3; that he as the nearest gnati of Ekambara Bhattar, redeemed the mortgage in 1917 by paying Rs. 400 to the mother of defendant 1; that she put him in possession of the property; that, as the mortgage deed was not returned to him, defendant 4, guardian of defendants 1 to 3, taking advantage of it, leased the murai to defendant 5 ...
In Re: the Powers of the Newly Enrolled Statutory Advocates Under the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ551
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be delivered by my brother Kumaraswami Sastri and I entirely agree with it. It is clear that the object of the Act must be taken to have been to put all classes of practitioners on the same footing and if the Insolvency Jurisdiction of the Original Side were to be held to be on a different footing as regards the right of audience from the rest of its jurisdiction, it would obviously have been an anomaly left outstanding by the Act per incuriam. I confess that such a result would not have surprised me in so ill-considered and ill-drafted a measure as the Bar Councils Act. Moreover, with the mass of evidence collected by the Bar Committee in 1923-24, it is remarkable that those responsible for the Bar Councils Act made no attempt whatever to provide for the peculiar state of things obtaining in the Madras High Court which has no parallel in any other High Court in India. But I agree with my leane...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »