Chennai Court October 1929 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.
Sivanu thevar and ors. Vs. Omaiyorubhagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad560; (1930)58MLJ437
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued originally for a declaration of title to Survey No. 353 with the palmyra trees standing thereon and to 39 palmyra trees standing on Survey No. 352 and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment. The original Court decreed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court dismissed it. The plaintiffs appeal regarding their title to the trees only and have given up the claim to the land, Survey No. 353.2. The facts are as follows : Up to the resettlement of 1909 in this District of Tinnevelly there were separate pattahs for the suit land and for the suit trees thereon. Such separate pattahs were a common feature in that District before the resettlement. The defendants in this case held the land pattahs and the plaintiffs the tree pattahs. At the resettlement the general Government policy of getting rid of tree pattahs was carried out, and in pursuance of that policy, the plaintiffs' tree pattahs were can...
V.M. Rathnavelu Mudaliar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad189; 122Ind.Cas.497
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner was tried under Section 15, Act 8 of 1899. It is a summons case but a charge was framed that petitioner had either sold 31 cans of dangerous petroleum to an unlicensed person, or had transported the same cans through that person without a pass, and therefore, he had committed an offence under Section 15(c) of the Act.2. The offence under Section 15(c) is breaking any condition contained in a license under the Act. The lower Court found the accused guilty under Section 15(c) of having sold 31 cans to an unlicensed person, which must mean that selling to an unlicensed person contravenes some condition of his license. The license was never proved, and, assuming that could be a remediable omission, this Court has been unable to discover from the rules what condition in what license would have been contravened.3. The prosecution, therefore, entirely failed to make out its case in the Court of trial.4. The learned Sessions Judge came to the same conclusion, ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pl. S. Sivaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ854
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Two points referred to us for decision are: (1) whether a combined notice under Sections 23(2) and 22(4) is a valid notice, and whether on a non-compliance of the terms of such a notice, an assessment under Section 23(4) could be justified? and (2) whether in respect of an assessee who has submitted a return of his income under Section 22(2), a notice issued under Section 22(4) is valid so as to justify an assessment under Section 23(4) in the event of non-compliance of the terms of the notice?2. As regards the first point we think it is covered by authority. That a combined notice may be sent has been held in In re Harmukhrai Duiichand I.L.R.(1928) C. 39 (F.B.), In the matter of Chandra Sen Jaini I.L.R.(1928) A. 589 Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma v. R. M.P. Chettiar I.L.R.(1929) Rang. 26. Firm and Ram Kissendas Bagri v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal (1927) 2 I.T.C. 324 (F.B.).3. The second question has, we think, been practically answered in Ramasw...
Shroff Veerappa and anr. Vs. Nawab Shiya-ul-mulk and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ239
1. The Assistant Engineer, Kurnool, under the authority of the President, District Board, Kurnool, filed a complaint against the owner and driver, respectively, of Bus No. K. U. 62, alleging that they,had committed an offence by using that bus on the 15th October, 1928, for carrying passengers at separate fares on the Chittoor-Kurnool road without the District Board's licence, an offence coming within the purview of Section 166(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920 and punishable under Section 207 of that Act. The complaint was presented to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kurnool. He recorded the complainant's sworn statement, and holding that the act complained of was not 'plying a bus for hire' and that the contracts with the passengers had been entered into within the limits of the Kurnool Municipality and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of the District Board, decided that, upon the allegations made, there had been no contravention of Section 166(1) of the Local Boards ...
Doraisami thevar Vs. Minor Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad221; (1930)58MLJ57
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 160 of 1927, District Munsif's Court, Mayavaram. The plaintiff died and the respondents (1 to 3) applied to be brought on record as his legal representatives. They pleaded to be entitled to be brought on because the plaintiff had been suing in the character of their benamidar and they are the persons really interested in the suit. The learned District Munsif has accepted their plea without addressing his mind to its merits. He simply states that having found the plaintiff to be their benamidar they are in his opinion entitled to be recognised as legal representatives.2. This recognition would be under Order 22, Rule 3, Schedule I, 'shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party.' And Section 2, Clause (11), Civil Procedure Code, defines what a legal representative is. It is not suggested that the respondents (1 to 3) in law represent the estate of the deceased but it is argued that the deceased sue...
T.H. Ismail Hassam Vs. T.S. Haji Moosa and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad538; (1930)58MLJ355
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which these appeals arose may be stated as follows : A suit was filed (C. S. No. 160 of 1927) to recover Rs. 1,722-10-0 with interest by the plaintiff Ismail Hassam against two defendants on the following allegations. The amount claimed was due to the plaintiff primarily by the 2nd defendant. But the 2nd defendant being also indebted to the 1st defendant, he sent 19 bales of piece goods to the 1st defendant instructing him to pay off the amount due to the plaintiff and out of the balance of the amount to pay himself. But the 1st defendant has not paid the money or sent any bales equivalent in value to the amount claimed by the plaintiff. This suit was decreed by Beasley, J., as he then was, on 28th January, 1928. In the meantime a Commissioner was appointed to take charge of the goods and afterwards he was directed to sell the goods. A certain amount was realised and is now in Court. Meanwhile certain other creditors of the 2nd defendant, about five of th...
Kolandaswami Pillai Vs. Rajaratna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad785; (1930)58MLJ579
ORDER1. The order of the Town Sub-Magistrate has no merits.2. A judgment-debtor escaped in the night from the amin who had arrested him and the Subordinate Judge ordered the amin to prosecute. There is no question here of sanction; the amin could have prosecuted without reference to the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge simply passed the order departmentally to give the amin a chance of rehabilitating his character. Meanwhile the decree-holder complained. When his case came up for trial the Court held that his complaint was incompetent and acquitted the accused. He was no doubt acquitted owing to the Sub-Magistrate's total misunderstanding of an Allahabad case which is not in Indian Law Reports. That case merely laid down that if a Civil Court wishes to complain the Munsif must lodge a complaint or get one lodged and cannot merely send a report. The case adds nothing to Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code. But none the less he was acquitted.3. Then the amin lodged his compla...
Mandy Mathar Sahib Vs. Bijan Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad234; 121Ind.Cas.846
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Plaintiff 1 was married by the defendant in 1904. He had two children by her, who lived until 1921; differences having arisen between plaintiff 1 and the defendant, the defendant divorced plaintiff 1 in February 1920. Between 1913 and 1920 plaintiff 1 and her two children were living separately from the defendant.2. On the allegation that plaintiff 1 maintained herself and her two children out of the money borrowed from her brother-in-law plaintiff 2, she filed the original suit, making her brother-in-law plaintiff 2, to recover Rs. 1,244 from the defendant, being money borrowed for the maintenance of herself and the two children aforesaid; the amount is alleged to have been borrowed between May 1917 and February 1920, and the suit was filed on 8th April 1922. The defendant denied his liability. He also denied plaintiff 1's right to pledge the credit of the defendant and alleged that there was no lawful necessity to do so. He also pleaded that the suit was not...
O.M. Subramanian Vs. C. Appadurai Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad540
1. The rules are no doubt in artistically framed, but they have been interpreted: vide Official Trustee of Madras v. Kamalammal A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1214 where 'disposed of' is construed to mean adjudication after trial. If the words mean disposal in any manner whatever, the words following are unnecessary. We have got here, a confession of judgment though at a very late stage and Clause (b) applies and Clause (1) on its face is not confined to cases which have not reached the Final Disposal Board.2. If the result is somewhat unsatisfactory it is a matter for recasting of the rules.3. The learned Judge is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs....
Shroff Veerappa and anr. and Nawab Shuja-ul-mulk and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.15
ORDER1. The Assistant Engineer, Kurnool under the authority of the President, District Board, Kurnool, filed a complaint against the owner and driver respectively of Bus No. K.U. 62 alleging that they had committed an offence by using that bus on the 14th October, 1928, for carrying passengers at separate fares on the Chittoor-Kurnool road without the District Board's license, an offence coming within, the purview of Section 166(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920 and punishable under Section 207, of that Act. The complaint was presented to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kurnool. He recorded the complainant's sworn statement and, holding that the act complained of was not plying a bus for hire and that the contracts with the passengers had been entered into within the limits of the Kurnool Municipality and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of the District Board, decided that upon the allegations made, there had been no contravention of Section 166(1) of the Local Boards Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »