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.
T.K. Pirmanayagam Pillay Vs. Arumugham Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad710; 118Ind.Cas.97
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts of these second appeals are somewhat complicated but a reference to the main features is all that is necessary for deciding them. The plaint properties originally belonged to a certain Issakiadumperumal Pillai, who died in 1862. The plaintiffs alleged that he had made a nuncupative will granting life-estate in his properties to his widow Piramuthu Animal and a remainder over in favour of his five daughters, of whom Nallavadivammal was one and Subbammal another. Sometime after his death his widow left a registered will, Ex. A, dated 1870, in which she purported to give effect to the wishes of her husband by giving an absolute title to the five daughters in respect of the properties. The nuncupative will has been found to be not true, and it has been held that. Nallavadivammal obtained only a limited estate in the properties which enured for the lifetime of the sisters. These findings have not been attacked before me and the argument proceeded on the assumpt...
In Re: the Powers of Newly Enrolled Statutory Advocates Under the Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.876
Murray Coutts-Trotter, 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 in curiam. 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 learned br...
T.S. Ragupathi Aiyar Vs. Narayana Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad5; 114Ind.Cas.559; (1928)55MLJ767
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The respondents in these Criminal Revision Petitions, and in two or three others which have since been withdrawn, were convicted of mischief, under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupathur, and sentenced to pay fines, but the convictions were reversed by the Joint Magistrate, Tirupathur, on appeal. The petitioner is agent to the Mittadar of Bommai Kuppam, and was complainant in the criminal prosecutions. The case against each respondent was that he unlawfully allowed goats to graze in the Mitta forest, grazing rights being restricted to holders of permits, and in this way committed the offence in question. Arguments for revision have been based upon the terms of the judgments to which Civil Revision Petition No. 996 of 1927 relates.2. In order to establish the offence of mischief, as defined in Section 425, Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the accused 'with intent to cause, or. knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or da...
Hassan Kutti Beary Vs. Jainabha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1285; 113Ind.Cas.306; (1928)55MLJ828
Odgers, J.1. This is a Second Appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of South Kanara confirming that of the District Munsif, and the question is has the father of the plaintiff the right to marry her to the defendant without her consent? The parties are Moplahs and Sunni Muhammadans. The case has been argued on the assumption that they belong to the Shafi sect of the Sunnis. Nikka was performed by the father of the plaintiff in the Tadangere Mosque, and the question is - is this an irrevocable marriage? The plaintiff is an adult virgin and it is not proved that she has been consulted or that her consent has been obtained. Another important sect of the Sunnis is the Hanafis. There is no doubt that a woman cannot be married in that sect without her consent. The learned Advocates on each side have been at pains to bring to our notice every possible authority which exists in the text-books. There are practically no cases on the point, and therefore the text-writers must be sh...
In Re: a Veluayudam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.509
ORDERReilly, J.1. The only evidence in this case that Ex. C-4 is a false document is Ex. L, by which the prosecution has sought to prove that the kind of stamp which appears under the executant's signature on Ex. C-4 was not issued until some years after the date of Ex. C 4. It is contended for the petitioners that Ex. L as it stands is not admissible in evidence. It has been admitted as if it were a public document. But it does not come within the definition of a public document in Section 74 of the Evidence Act. It is a circular by which the Director General of Posts and. Telegraphs notified in August 1922, that stamps of the kind in question would soon be issued to Post Offices for sale to the public Such a notification of intention cannot be treated as an 'actor 'record' of an act of a public officer within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Nor is it certified by the head of the department nor does it purport to be printed by order of the Government within the meaning ...
Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Subrahmania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad1; (1928)55MLJ794
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. My brother Odgers and I referred this case to a Full Bench rather from a desire to have an authoritative ruling for the Courts of this Presidency than from any real doubt we had as to the right answers to the questions that we referred.2. The answers to the questions are as follows:(1) The Acts are retrospective. We should have thought that Acts XXVII of 1926 and X of 1927 showed a clear intention that they were to be regarded as retrospective, but the terms of Act XII of 1927 preclude further discussion.(2) The signatures of the Registering Officer and of the identifying witnesses affixed to the registration endorsement are a sufficient attestation within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act and its subsequent amending Acts. The argument against this conclusion was that the signatures were made alio intuitu, to satisfy the requirements of the Registration Act, and cannot therefore be invoked in aid for another purpose, viz., attestation under ...
Bhaskaruni Venkatanarayana Vs. Bhaskaruni Lakshmibayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad309
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of Devadoss, J., in Second Appeal No. 1760 of 1923. The main facts are not disputed. By a partition suit decree, it was agreed between the plaintiff, defendant as legal representative of her husband, and other coparceners of defendant's husband that, if certain debts were recovered from one of the parties, the others were to be liable for contribution according to the proportion of their share and that this rateable contribution was to be a charge on the immovable property of each. Among these debts was a promissory note of 1912 executed by all the co-parceners. When it was about to expire in 1915 the coparceners, excluding the defendant's husband, renewed it. On the renewed note, the promisee sued, got a decree and executed it against the plaintiff who paid up the whole amount. The plaintiff sues the defendant as legal representative of her husband for contribution. The trial Court and the first appellate Court dismissed the suit holdi...
(Devarapalli Bulli) Bapyayya Vs. (Vadeevu) Viswa Sundara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad389
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry and a preliminary point is taken by the learned advocate for the respondent that no second appeal lies. The suit is brought by a zamindar against the inamdar for damages for use and occupation by the defendants for faslis 1328 to 1330 assessed at Rs. 37-9-0. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants who were his tenants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11-4-6 per year as kist including local and railway cesses and the question is whether the suit is of a small cause nature. It was originally instituted as such, but was then presented to the original side of the Munsif's Court in order to decide a question of title which had been raised by the written statement, under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Mr. K. Kameswara Rao, the learned advocate for the respondent has cited a series of cases which seem to me under the circumstances of this case to cover all the points. For instance if this sum o...
Sivaswami Aiyar Vs. Thirumudi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1928
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ219
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing with costs S.A. No. 401 of 1922. The plaintiff is the appellant before us and the main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit properties which originally belonged to one Panchanathier were by his will, dated 8th January, 1898 (Ex. A in the case) dedicated absolutely for the performance of a charity styled by him as Dwadasi Dharmam and the persons expressly nominated by him in the will for the conduct of the said charity, viz., his nephews Venkataramier and Sivaswami were constituted as mere trustees for the performance of the said charity or whether under the said will Panchanathier bequeathed the suit properties to Venkataramier personally subject to a trust in favour of the said charity which was to be conducted by him and after his death by his younger brother Sivaswami and after the latter's death by their heirs in perpetuity.2. The plaintiff's case is that the prop...
K.S. Ganapathi Aiyar Vs. Sakharayappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad187
Ramesam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against an interlocutory order of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly excluding certain items of evidence in the course of the trial of O.S. No. 23 of 1924. Two points have been dealt with in the order of the lower Court and have been argued before me (1) A printed copy of the deposition of a party to the former suit (who is the father of present defendant 7) which came up to the High Court in 1900 on appeal was tendered in evidence as containing an admission of the party and contradicting his present case, and (2), defendant 1 in the case offered to give evidence of the fact that the party made an oral statement as a witness in the trial of the former suit, the oral statement being the deposition itself. The Subordinate Judge excluded both these items. The matter is sure to come up on first appeal, and when it does come to the High Court these points will have to be dealt with by two Judges of the High Court. It seems to me t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »