Chennai Court December 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.
Madiraju Jagannadha Rao Vs. Somu Laksh Munarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.549
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is the appellant in this second appeal. He is the adopted son of defendant. No. 1, his adoption having taken place in 1917. Defendent No. 1, the adoptive father, executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to sell some immoveable property belonging to the joint Hindu family composed of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In Ex. A which is the agreement defendant No. 1 undertook as follows:I shall include my adopted son Jagannath Rao also as a party to the sale-deed and execute the document of sale in your favour.2. Defendant No. 1 having defaulted to carry out his part of the contract, the plaintiff filed the original suit of which this second appeal has arisen for specific performance of this agreement to sell, making the father as defendant No. 1 and the adopted son as defendant No. 2 to the suit. Defendant No. 1 set up a plea that the plaintiff himself agreed to secure the conjunction of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff not having done so, the su...
Ethiyappa Gramany and ors. Vs. Angappa Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad658
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Madurantakam at Chingleput dismissing an application to set aside an exparte decree under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The petitioner alleging that he had come to know of the decree only twelve days back applied on 27th September 'to have it set aside. The District Munsiff on 1st October ordered the petitioner to deposit the amount, as there was not time to test the draft security tendered. It was a suit disposed of in March and the records had to be got from the District Court. It has been held in Assam Mahomed Sahib v. Rahim Sahib [1920] 43 Mad. 579 that security need not be given along with, the application, provided that it is all complete and in order within the month prescribed by Article 164, Lim. Act. If the District Munsiff thinks it improbable that ha will get the testing done within the period it is certainly within his discretion to say so and ask for a deposit, and he exer...
Jaffar HusaIn Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Krishnan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad701; (1930)58MLJ703
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs are representative Muhammadans of Lalgudi and neighbouring villages. They sued for a declaration that they are entitled to carry on public worship in the suit- mosque, at hours stated by them, undisturbed by Hindu processions of music, or playing of music in the adjoining Pilliar Kovil, and they sued further for an injunction restraining the defendants who are representative Hindus of these villages, from so disturbing their worship. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appeal.2. Although the plaint prayer is indefinite as to the period of time for which the plaint relief is desired, the plaintiffs' learned Advocate stated at the Bar that the plaint case relates to the period of the Mari Amman festival. The plaintiffs claim that the relief they seek for was in effect granted in a former suit filed by the Hindus against the Muhammadans to set aside the G.O. restraining the Hindus from playing music in front of the suit mosque duri...
(Natukendi) Pakkaran and ors. Vs. (Varayalankand Kanayambath) Pathumma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad541
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In this case defendants 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the appellants before me. One Pakran had gifted certain properties to his wife and children. A creditor of one of the sons named Kunhi Poker attached the share of Kunhi Poker, when the question arose as to what exactly was the nature of the interest created in the children of Pakran in the properties gifted by Pakran to his wife and children. The question came up for decision before a Full Bench of this Court Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker [1915] 39 Mad. 17, and it was decided that the properties gifted by Pakran were tavazhi properties of his wife and children and were governed by the incidents of Marumakathayam Law, and that none of the sons of Pakran had any such rights in the properties as could be seized or sold in execution of a decree obtained against him by one of his creditors.2. The present suit was instituted by one of the daughters of Path Umma, a sister of the said Kunhi Poker, for a declaration that...
Natukendi Pakkaran and ors. Vs. Varayalankandi Kanayambath Pathumma Um ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.730
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In this case defendants Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the appellants before me. One Pakran had gifted certain properties to his wife and children. A creditor of one of the sons named Kunhi Poker attached the share of Kunhi Poker, when the question arose as to what exactly was the nature of the interest created in the children of Pakran in the properties gifted by Pakran to this wife and children. The question came up for decision before a Full Bench of this Court: Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 39 M. 317 : 29 M.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 740 : 18 M.L.T. 255, and it was decided that the properties gifted by Pakran were tavazhi properties of his wife and children and were governed by the incidents of Marumakathayam Law, and that none of the sons of Pakran had any such rights in the properties as could be seized or sold in execution of a decree obtained against him by one of his creditors.2. The present suit was instituted by one of the daughters ...
Sree Venugopala Rice Mill Represented by Mallidi Nagayya and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ74
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: The defendants are the proprietors of a rice mill. They purchased for the purpose of erecting and working a mill 3 26 acres out of S.No. 179 in the suit village which lies within the estate of the Zamindar of Pithapuram, who is the plaintiff. The defendants' vendor was the ryot who held S. No. 189 on patta from the Zamindar. When the Zamindar's thanedar informed the defendants, that buildings should not be erected on ryoti land, the defendants petitioned the Zamindar and came to an agreement with him that they should be left undisturbed promising to pay him three times the ordinary cist. The Zamindar accordingly ordered his, officials to sub-divide the 3.26 acres from the main holding and have that registered as a separate holding in the names of the defendants, and directed that a draft patta and a muchilika should be prepared. When the muchilika was offered to the defendants, they refused to accept it, on the grou...
Piratla Peda Venkatasubbarayudu and ors. Vs. Haji Silar Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad582; (1930)58MLJ524
Wallace, J.1. The main question in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiffs' father was the Muttawalli of a mosque for the lighting in which the suit wakf was endowed. He and his eldest son, the 1st defendant, sold the property to the father of defendants 2 and 3 (and grandfather of 4th defendant) on 25th November, 1909. The vendee held the pro-pert until the date of the suit, 27th March, 1922. The plaintiffs sue to declare that the sale is invalid and for recovery of possession of the property for the mosque. Both the Lower Courts decreed the suit and defendants 2 to 4 appeal.2. The main point argued is that the suit is time-barred. It is conceded that, on the latest rulings of the Privy Council, Article 134 has no application to the case, and Article 144 is the proper Article. The appellants contend that the wakf property is inalienable and that, therefore, time begins to run from the date of the sale, on which date the vendee came into possession, and that, therefore, the ve...
M.R.M.C.L. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. P.R.S.A.R. Periakaruppan ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad520; (1930)58MLJ658
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide relates to the scope and effect: of Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920). I shall briefly state the facts. Periakaruppan (the respondent before us) obtained a decree against Marappa (the insolvent). He then attached the latter's properties and brought them to sale. They were sold by the Court on 24th July, 1923, and a sum of about Rs. 3,000 was realised. In the meantime, Somasundaram (the petitioner before its), acting by his agent Maruda Pillai, presented on the 30th of June, 1923, an insolvency petition against Marappa, who, thereupon, was adjudged an insolvent on 6th October, 1923. The Insolvency Court under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act directed the proceeds of the sale to be delivered to the Official Receiver. Periakaruppan, whose rights were thus affected by the order of adjudication, filed an appeal against it to the High Court. Being advised that the more proper course was to apply to the Insolvency Court ...
Sadayan Chetti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad632
ORDERJackson, J.1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257, Criminal P.C. and if Lakshmayya v. Emperor : AIR1927Mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a Magistrate has summoned witnesses under Section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, I respectfully disagree.2. However, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. The sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused. Fines will be refunded....
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Polasanapalle Nagaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.229; (1930)59MLJ114
Jackson, J.1. This tree of brothers and sisters gives the personae dramatis. SisterBrother Accused No. 2 | | Accused No. 1 ------------------- | | | | P.W. No. 2 P.W. No. 3 | -------------------------- | | | | Daughter marries Brother. Brother. Chitti Sister-- (deceased), wife of P.W. No.12. Chitti, the deceased, was 14 years old. On 17th December, 1928, his corpse was found in the yard of P.W. No. 5 The medical evidence shows that he was throttled.3. He was seen on the evening of 16th December on the verandah of the he use of accused No. 2 with the two accused and the sons of accused No. 2, P.Ws. Nos. 2 and 3.4. On the 18th December, these two boys were arrested for the crime; and on 29th December, 1928, they 'confessed'; that is $6 say, statements recorded from them under Section 164 were treated as confessions, but their effect is to put the guilt upon the present accused and an oil-monger, and to exonerate the boys. In the Committing Court they stood by these statements, and in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »