Chennai Court January 1929 Judgments
Thirumalaisamy Naidu and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad601
Phillips, J.1. The appellants in appeal 229 (23) plaintiffs 1 sue as reversioners of one Muthusami Naidu who died in 1873, leaving a widow Kuppammal who was in enjoyment of his property until she died in 1919. The appellants have obtained a decree for some items claimed by them and this appeal relates to 23 items for which their claim was disallowed. The appeal is only pressed in respect of items 15, 20, 21 and 23 to 28, the claim to the other items being given up. In order to determine the validity of the alienation of these items by the widow it is necessary to consider certain facts in the case. In 1884 the widow Kuppammal executed an othi deed in favour of one Perumal Kone in respect of item 31 for Rs. 350. This document was not registered and Perumal Kone-filed a suit to compel registration after a criminal case of cheating preferred against Kuppammal by him had been dismissed. The litigation in respect of the othi deed continued until about 1887 when Perumal Kone obtained a decre...
Tag this Judgment!Uggappa Pujari Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad498
Waller, J.1. Appellant 1 (Pammu, accused 1) has been convicted of the murder of one Rosario Minezes. The 2nd (Uggappa Pujari-Accused 2) has been convicted of having helped her to dispose of the body. The Public Prosecutor has appealed against his acquittal on the charge of murder.2. The case against appellant 1 is, we think, clear enough quite apart from the admissions that are attributed to her. She and Rosario had been on terms of intimacy but had fallen out shortly before the murder and she had been heard to threaten to kill him. It is proved that, on the night of the murder he was seen entering her house and was never, after that, seen alive and human blood was found in and near her house. She gave up to the police a pole and rope which had apparently been used for transporting the dead body to the place where it was found, and they also were stained with human blood. In addition she is said to have made a full confession to P.W. 10 implicating herself and appellant 2 in the murder...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi Ammal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad511
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case 13 petitioners ask for a revision of the order of the District Magistrate of Salem, wherein he refused to transfer the case in which the 13 petitioners are accused from the file of the Sub-Divisional 1st Class Magistrate. The accused were charge-sheeted before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Salem and appeared on three occasions before him to answer charges of conspiracy to murder etc. The police put in a petition before the 1st Class Magistrate requesting him to take the case on his own file and thereby remove it from the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate. This was done without notice to the accused and although Section 528 (2), Criminal P.C., does not say that notice shall be given to the accused when an application for transfer that concerns him is made, the practice of this Court seems to be to hold that it is advisable in the interests of justice that such notice should be given. Several cases have been cited on the point. One is In Re: Lala Miyan Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswami Reddiar and ors. Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad668
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This petition raises a question relating to Court-fee as well as jurisdiction. The point in regard to Court-fee having been decided by the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs, the reason for my interfering in revision is, that its decision is wrong on the question of jurisdiction: see the judgment in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 396.2. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that their father entered into a partnership with defendants 1 to 3 which was to remain in force till 1931, that, after their father's death in 1925, their mother agreed with the said defendants to release the plaintiffs' rights in the partnership and executed a release deed, dated 10th April 1926. After plaintiff 1 attained majority in 1927, this suit was filed for obtaining a declaration that the release deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. They allege that the deed was brought about by fraud and undue influence and that their rights are 'not affected by the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvellu Chettiar Vs. T. Govindaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad781a
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Two points were argued in this revision petition as covered by ground 4 of the revision petition. The first point viz., whether the plaintiff (father) could maintain the suit, was not raised in either of the lower Courts (the Village Court or District Munsif's Court), and it requires facts for its elucidation. Further, I find by reference to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, page 70, para. 190, and Bullon and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings (5th Edition), page 624, that the father of an apprentice who is a minor could in certain circumstances maintain suits against the master of the apprentice. For instances of such suits, 1) may refer to Phillips v. Clift [1859] 127 E.R. 801 and Lcaroyd v. Brook [1891] 1 Q.B. 431. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, p. 118 para. 275 it is stated:that while infant children live with and are maintained by their father, he is entitled to the earnings of their labour.2. See also Ex parte Macklin [1755] 28 E.R. 430. So I ca...
Tag this Judgment!(Chodavarapu) Subha Rao and ors. Vs. Veeranjaneyaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad298
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of the same original suit, O.S. No. 61 of 23, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam. The plaintiff sues as the trustee of Sri Veeranjaneyaswamuluvaru temple at Gudivada. Defendant 1 is in possession of item 1, defendant 2 is in possession of item 2 and defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of items 3 and 4, these being the four items which are the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff's adoptive father Kameswara Pakayya and his father one Brahmaraju, endowed certain lands belonging to them in Gudivada for the purposes of the temple. They built the temple in 1886 and conducted it for three years. In 1889 they executed a gift deed Ex. A, by which they endowed the suit land for the purposes of the temple, making themselves dharmakarthas. The document shows that some portions were intended to be built upon. A thatched house was built upon item 1 in 1893. Afterwards, some time in 1905 it was replaced by a tiled house: ...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.38
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This petition raises a qustion relating to Court-fee as well as jurisdiction. The point in regard to Court fee having been decided by the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs, the reason for my interfering in revision is, that its decision is wrong on the question of jurisdiction. See the judgment in Kalliya Pillai v. Ramaswamy Pillai 119 Ind. Cas. 35 : (1929) M.W.N. 286 : 29 L.W. 584 : A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 396.2. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that their father entered into partnership with defendants Nos. 1 to 3 which was to remain in force till 1931, that after their father's death in 1925, their mother agreed with the said defendants to release the plaintiffs' rights in the partnership and executed a release deed, dated the 10th of April, 1926. After the 1st plaintiff attained majority in 1927, this suit was filed for obtaining a declaration that the release deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. They allege that the deed was brought about by fraud an...
Tag this Judgment!Mutuvelu Chettiar Vs. T. Govindaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.304
Ananthakrishna Iyer, J.1. The points were argued in this revision petition are covered by ground No. 4 of the revision petition. The first point viz., whether the plaintiff (father) could maintain the suit, was not raised in either of the lower Courts (the village Court or District Munsif's Court), and it requires facts for its elucidation. Further I find by reference to Halsbury's Laws of England Volume XVII, page, 70 para. 193, and Bullen and Leake's Precedents of pleading (5th Edition) page. 624 that the father of an apprentice who is a minor could in certain circumstances maintain suits against the master of the apprentice. For instances of such suit, I may refer to Phillips v. Clift (1859) 127 E.R. 801 : 4 H. & M. 168 : 28 L.J. Ex. 153 : 5 Jur. (N.S.) 74 : 7 W.R. 295 : 118 R.R. 368 and Learoyed v. Brook (1891) 1 Q.B. 431 : 60 L.J.Q.B. 373 : 64 L.T. 458 : 39 W.R. 480 : 55 J.P. 265. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. XVII page. 118 para. 275 it is stated that while infant children l...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamatchi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.385
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case 13 petitioners ask for a revision of the order of the District Magistrate, Salem, wherein he refused to transfer the case in which the 13 petitioners are accused from the file of the Sub-Divisional First Glass Magistrate. The accused were charge-sheeted before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Salem and appeared on three occasions before him to answer charges of conspirary to murder etc. The Police put in a petition before the First Glass Magistrate requesting him to take the case on his own file and thereby remove it from the file of the Second Class Magistrate. This was done without notice to the accused and although Section 528(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not say that notice shall be given to the accused when an application for transfer that concerns him is made, the practice of this Court seems to be to hold that it is advisable in the interests of justice that such notice should be given. Several cases have been cited on the point. One is I...
Tag this Judgment!Chodavarpu Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Veeranjaneyaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.279
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of the same original suit, O.S. No. 61 of 1923, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam. The plaintiff sues as the trustee of Sri Veeranjaneyaswamuluvaru temple at Gudivada. Defendant No. 1 is in possession of item No. 1, defendant No. 2 is in possession of item No. 2 and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are in possession of items Nos. 3 and 4, these being the four items which are the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff's adoptive father Kameswara Pakayya and his father one Brahmaraju, endowed certain lands belonging to them in Gudivada for the purposes of the temple. They built the temple in 1886 and conducted it for three years. In 1889 they executed a gift deed Ex. A, by which they endowed the suit land for the purposes of the temple, making themselves dharmakarthas. The document shows that some portions were intended to be built upon. A thatched house was built upon item No. 1 in 1893. Afterwards, some time in 1905 it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »