Chennai Court February 1929 Judgments
Veerappudayan Vs. Oganthappudayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad599; 118Ind.Cas.492
ORDER1. Following the decision in Khetra Mohan Saha v. Jaimini Kanta : AIR1927Cal472 , we hold that the documents are bonds within the meaning of the Stamp Act. The reference will be answered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Tirumana Goundan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad544
ORDER1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Ali Haider Khan : AIR1925Cal1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tirumana Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.366
ORDER1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Muhammad Ali Haider Khan : AIR1925Cal1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings. The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance.2. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Kakari Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Kodali Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.717
1. In this appeal, three alienations in favour of the appellants are in question. They were made by a widow and the lower Appellate Court has found that they are not binding upon the estate except in one case where the consideration is binding to the extent of Rs. 189. These findings have been sought to be attacked on the ground that the learned Judge has committed various errors of law in coming to that conclusion. These errors of law seem to consist mainly in an. Alleged failure to consider some of the evidence and this argument is based on the absence of reference to all the details of the evidence in the judgment. The learned Advocate for the appellants has been allowed to refer to some of that evidence which is deemed to be so material as to vitiate the judgment of the learned Judge. He has been unable to point out anything which is so material that an omission to refer to it in the judgment would vitiate that judgment and the District Judge appears to have considered all the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Thubati Kotayya Vs. the President, Taluk Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad607; 118Ind.Cas.289; (1929)57MLJ40
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A candidate had to be elected to represent Nadandla Circle on the Narasaraopet Taluk Board. In respect of that single vacancy, there were three candidates for election, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant being two of them. The election was to be held on the 13th August, 1928, and the nomination papers were to be presented on the 17th July between 5 and 6 p.m. The President of the Taluk Board rejected the nomination of the plaintiff as invalid, who, thereupon, has instituted the present suit to obtain a declaration that he was validly nominated and an injunction restraining the former from holding the election.2. There were ten nomination papers and four out of them are material to the present enquiry. They are the following:Serial Time of Candidate Proposer. SeconderNo. presentation.2 5-4 p.m. 2nd Deft. S. Subbiah D. Sriramulu5 5-6 p.m. Plaintiff D. Sriramulu P. Tirupathi-rayudu.6 5-6 p.m. Plaintiff G. Amariah S. Subbiah10 5-59 p.m. Plaintiff G. Amariah K. Venki...
Tag this Judgment!Gade Govinda Rao Pantulu Vs. Parankusam C. Jagannadham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad787; (1929)57MLJ234
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an application for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 273 of 1915 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court at. Berhampore. In Berhampore there existed at that time two District Munsifs' Courts, one called the Principal District Munsif's Court and the other the Additional District Munsif's Court, Berhampore. The latter Court seems to have been sectioned in 1911 under a notification of the High Court. By this notification the Additional District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction throughout the Berhampore District Munsifi. The plaintiff filed his suit in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Berhampore. It was transferred for disposal by the Additional District Munsif who gave a decree in plaintiff's favour. There was an appeal, in which also plaintiff succeeded. In 1912 the then District Judge, now Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri, passed proceedings, dated 31st July, 1912. What exactly is the purport of...
Tag this Judgment!Ramiah thevan Vs. Athmanatha Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad624; 117Ind.Cas.727
Wallace, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. This appears to me to be sound. The petition to set aside the order was put in under Order 21, Rule 90, and no second appeal lies against an order under that rule. I am asked to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition and it is urged that the executing Court committed two errors of jurisdiction:in adjourning the sale from time to-time beyond the seven days' period allowed to it by law.in allowing the decree-holders' vakil to purchase the property at the sale.2. As to (1) I cannot see that anything more than an irregularity has occurred, and it is not made out that that irregularity in itself occasioned any loss or injury to the judgment-debtor. Though on the findings the sale was properly proclaimed, only one bidder appeared even on the first day of sale. So any postponement of the sale would work really for the judgment-debtor's benefit rather than to his disadvantage, as affording opportunity for other bidders ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Mudali and anr. Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad696
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The defendants apply for a certificate of leave to appeal to the King in Council. One of the questions raised in the suit was, whether the village in which the suit lands are situate, is an estate or not within the meaning of the Estates Land Act, It was inter alia contended for the defence that the village in question is an unsettled jaghir under Section 3 (2) (c). We have held that the grant was not a jaghir grant but an inam grant which falls within Sub-clause (d). We have further held that under the exception to Section 8. the inamdar acquired the kudivaram interest and the plots in question have, therefore, ceased to be parts of an estate. The contention of the defendants that they are entitled to occupancy rights has also been rejected.2. The judgment of this Court is a con-firming judgment. The plaintiff sought to recover in the suit, possession of three gidangadis or betel plots known as Veerapan, Kadapetham and Baker gidangadis. The learned District Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharilal Ratnalal Barker by Proprietor G. Anraji Vs. Palaniappa Mud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad572; 119Ind.Cas.158
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this revision petition may be thus stated. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are contractors In the course of the business the 2nd defendant got a cheque for Rs. 4,211 dated 11th August, 1927, drawn on the Imperial Bank of India, Erode. According to the plaintiff the cheque was negotiated for valuable consideration on the same date and the plaintiff became the owner in due course. Before he could present it for payment, the 1st defendant filed a suit against the 2nd defendant (O.S. No. 477 of 1927), in the District Munsif's Court of Erode and the plaintiff in that suit (the present 1st defendant) applied for a prohibitory order prohibiting the Imperial Bank of India from paying the amount to the 2nd defendant or his endorsees. The plaintiff intervened with I.A. No. 973 of 1927, for raising that order, but it was dismissed. Hence he brings this suit for a declaration to establish his right to obtain payment under the cheque or at any rate for a declaration that the cheq...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T.S. Ramaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.595
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The defendants apply for a certificate of leave to appeal to the King in council. One of the questions raised in the suit was, whether the village in which the suit lands are situate, is an estate or not within the meaning of the Estates Lund Act. It was inter alia contended for the defence that the village in question is an unsettled jagir under Section 3(2)(c). We have held that the grant was not a jagir grant but an inam grant which falls within Sub-clause (d). We have further held that, under the Exception to Section 8 the inamdar acquired the kudivaram interest and the plots in question have, therefore, ceased to be parts of an estate. The contention of the defendants that they are entitled to occupancy rights has also been rejected.2. The judgment of this Court is a confirming judgment. The plaintiff sought to recover in the suit possession of three Gidangadis or betel plots known as Veerapan, Kadapetham and Baker Gidangadis. The learned District Judge disa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »