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.
In Re: Sadayan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.606a
ORDERJackson, J.1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if In re Kaile Lakshmayya : AIR1927Mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a Magistrate has subpoened 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....
(Cherukat Madhathil Etakramancheri Illath Karnavan) Narayanan Nambudri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Mad26
Curgenven, J.1. The first question arising in this appeal is whether a suit lay to recover money realized by defendant 1, in execution for costs contrary, it is said, to the terms of the agreement, Ex. A. The circumstances were somewhat peculiar. Defendant 1, as managing trustee of a Devaswom, sued to recover certain properties from the present plaintiffs 4 and 5, who were tenants of the Devaswom. He lost his case in the two lower Courts and plaintiffs 4 and 5 realized their costs from him. Then he filed a second appeal and apparently, while all the parties thought it was still pending, the agreement above referred to was concluded. The relevant part of the text of this agreement is translated in para. 6 of the Subordinate Judge's judgment. In it defendant 1 agreed with another of the trustees on behalf of the remainder not to prosecute the litigation further, including Second Appeal 1606 of 1916, described as still pending before the High Court. This was on 16th September 1918 and in ...
Shanmuga Kodumban and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.43
Jackson, J.1. The seven appellants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 to 2 and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment concurrent, and appellants Nos. 3 to 7 to 18 months and 18 months, concurrent. Appellants Nos. 2, 3, 4 have been called upon to show cause why their sentences should not be enhanced.2. The main circumstance of this case is not seriously traversed. One Rajapandia Naick was beaten to death on the night of 19th May, 1929. The question raised on appeal is, which, if any, of the appellants took part in the crime. The death is said to have occurred at about 8 P. M. and by 11 p.m. The karnam P. W. No. 4 had the names of all the accused, and entered them in his report Ex. B. It has also been elicited on behalf of the accused that the eye-witness P.W. No. 1 mentioned all of the accused in detail when the Sub-Inspector investigated under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, on 20th May. On 24th May the Sub-Magistrate...
Amichand Nagindas and Co. and ors. Vs. Raoji Bhai Moti Bhai Patel and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad714; (1930)58MLJ613
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs, who are two brothers, sued for arrears of salary at Rs. 100 each for a certain number of months and for a commission of 2 per cent, as their remuneration for services rendered to the defendants in connection with an expedition sent in 1919 to Saigon and Singapore for the purchase of gold, which was to be brought into India. The learned Chief Justice, who tried the suit as Beasley, J., found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the remuneration which they claimed, but that they were entitled to a share in the profits of this gold importing venture. He found that a certain number of people were concerned in the venture and that of the profits made in it the defendants themselves were entitled to one half, the plaintiffs 50-115ths of the remaining half. One Chunilal was entitled to 31-115ths, one Lakshmichand to 17-ll5ths, and one Maoji Bhai to 17-115ths of the second half; and on that basis he made a decree that the defendants were entitled t...
(Nagari) Subbanna Vs. (Karapakula) Naranayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad349
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I think Article 29, Lim. Act is not applicable. The deed of hypothecation does not give the appellant any right to be in possession of the cattle attached. The seizure cannot be said to be wrongful as all that the appellant is entitled to is to have the sale subject to his hypothecation. Niadar Singh v. Ganga Dai [1916] 38 All. 676, is in point. As pointed out there can only be a wrongful seizure when the property was in the possession of the person. It may be that constructive possession will do. But when there is no right to possession there can be no wrongful seizure. Damaraju Narasimha Row v. Gangaram [1908] 4 M.L.T. 271, was a case of possession. I set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the result. Court-fees will be refunded....
Nagari Subbanna Vs. Karapakula Naranayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.362
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I think Article 29 of the Limitation Act is not applicable.2. The deed of hypothecation does not give the appellant any right to be in possession of the cattle attached. The seizure cannot be said to be wrongful as all that the appellant is entitled to is to have the sale subject to his hypothecation. Niadar Singh v. Ganga Dei 35 Ind. Cas. 86 : 38 A. 676 : 14 A.L.J. 728 is in point. As pointed out there can only be wrongful seizure when the property was in the possession of the person. It may be that constructive possession will do. But when there is no right to possession there can be no wrongful seizure. Damaraju Narasimha Rao v. Thadinada Gangaram 4 M.L.T. 271 : 31 M. 431 : 18 M.L.J. 590 was a case of possession. I set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the result. Court-fees will be refunded....
In Re: Sankaralinga Tevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ397
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly of the murder of his father Thandava Thevan and sentenced to death.2. Thandava Thevan was undoubtedly murdered on the night of the 2nd June last. He was stabbed on the chest and died of that stab. He was aged 55 years. The accused, aged 24, is his only son. The deceased had a second wife, P.W. 2, who is the step-mother of the accused. Roth the accused and his father owned a bandy and earned their livelihood by letting it on hire and the motive for the murder is alleged by the prosecution to have been a quarrel between Thandava Thevan and his son on this night with regard to the collection of money due from persons who had hired the bandy. As a result of this quarrel it is alleged that the accused stabbed his father and ran away. He surrendered himself to the Magistrate of Srivaikuntam on the 14th June.3. The evidence against the accused is purely circumstantial. There are no...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T. Krishnaji Bhat, Minor by His Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad693; (1930)59MLJ718
Reilly, J.1. In this case it is admitted that in August, 1919, Tawker & Sons, defendants 1 to 8, who were a firm of jewellers, collected Rs. 65,000 on behalf of the plaintiff's father, who is a nephew of defendant 1. It is also admitted that in October, 1919, the plaintiff's father created a trust in respect of Rs. 10,000 out of that Rs. 65,000. The trustees were Tawker & Sons, defendants 1 to 8, and the beneficiary was the plaintiff, who was then a minor, aged 13. The obligations of the trust are set out in Ex. A, a letter from the plaintiff's father to defendant 1, in which he says:It is my request that you should invest in your firm Rs. 10,000 in the name of my minor son, T.S. Krishnaji Bhat, and pay him the interest accruing thereon ;and after making reference to another matter he goes on,I shall not trouble you any more about these moneys and shall not question your investment of Rs. 10,000 either in your firm or any other as you may deem fit from time to time as you may deem prop...
(Kolangarethath) Pachan Vs. Kunhandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad539
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Court has held that the suit is not barred as res judicata by reason of certain two previous decisions and the defendant questions the correctness of this view.2. The plaintiff before us is Kunhandi, who sues Pachan, the defendant, for specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of two properties. The facts may be briefly stated. Pachan agreed to sell Kunhandi the suit items. At that time, the latter was already in possession of item 1 as mortgagee. He subsequently obtained possession of item 2 also and his case was that he paid the purchase money and was thereupon put in possession. Pachan filed the two previous suits against Kunhandi; one of them was to redeem the mortgage in respect of item 1 and the other related to item 2 and was brought on the footing of trespass. Kunhandi pleaded in those two suits the outstanding agreement to sell in his favour, but the Court passed decrees, remarking, in each suit, that Kunhandi's right would not be a...
Rajah Somasekhara Royal and ors. Vs. Rajah Sugutoor Immadi Mahadeva Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad496; (1930)59MLJ151
1. Defendants 2, 4 and 6 are the appellants and the facts which led up to this appeal are as follows:The parties to the suit who belong to the Lingayat community are members of the Punganur Zemindar's family. Punganur was permanently settled in 1861. It is an impartible estate governed by the law of primogeniture.2. On the 22nd of December, 1896, the then Zemindar, Raja Immadi Sankara Royal Yasavanta Bahadur, executed a will marked as Exhibit Y in the case. It recites that he transferred the estate to his eldest son Raja Immadi Veera Basava Chikka Royal Varu, and that he the eldest son should be the head of the Samasthanam and after him his eldest son and so on in succession. After giving certain directions and after giving certain legacies, he gave monthly allowances to his second and third sons.[After referring to the terms of the will and subsequent legal proceedings their Lordships proceeded as follows:]3. The upshot of these proceedings was that the plaintiff and his, descendants ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »