Chennai Court April 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.
Nogi Reddy Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad443
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a petition against the conviction of the petitioner for criminal misappropriation. It was charged and found against the petitioner that he in his capacity as Village Munsiff misappropriated for himself a sum of Rs. 10 collected by him from the complainant in the case. The conviction was confirmed on appeal and the petitioner asks me to interfere in revision.2. It is necessary to go shortly into the facts alleged. The petitioner admits having passed to the complainant a receipt for Rs. 10, Ex. A-1, on 12th January 1928. That receipt is on a sheet of paper and appears between two other receipts, Ex. A, for Rs. 10 dated 3rd January 1928, and Ex. A-2, for Rs. 20 on 5th February 1928. Exs. A-1 and A-2 are on a piece of paper which has been passed to the sheet on which A appears. The complainant's case was that he paid all three sums. It is admitted by the petitioner that no credit has been given in his accounts to the complainant for the payment on 12th January 19...
In Re: Nagi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.69
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a petition against the conviction of the petitioner for criminal misappropriation. It was charged and found against the petitioner that he in his capacity as Village Munsif misappropriated for himself a sum of Rs. 10 collected by him from the complainant in the case. The conviction was confirmed on appeal and the petitioner asks me to interfere in revision.2. It is necessary to go shortly into the facts alleged. The petitioner admits having passed to the complainant a receipt for Rs. 10, Ex. A-l, on 12th January, 1928. That receipt is on a sheet of paper and appears between two other receipts, Ex. A, for Rs. 10 dated 3rd January, 1928, and Ex. A-2, for Rs. 20 on 5th February, 1928. Exhibits A-l and A-2 are on a piece of paper which has been passed to the sheet on which A appears. The complainant's case was that he paid all three sums. It is admitted by the petitioner that no credit has been given in his accounts to the complainant for the payment on 12th Janu...
Peetha Swamigadu and ors. Vs. Chelasani Ramachandrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.77
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit against four defendants on 15th March, 1924. The first and second defendants died in January and April 1925 respectively. The plaintiff applied on 29th July, 1926, to add the present petitioners as legal representatives of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. After notice was given, the Court passed an order adding them. The petitioners afterwards put in an application for setting aside this order and it was set aside. Subsequently on an application dated 18th January, 1927, an order was passed setting aside the abatement against the petitioners and adding them as defendants. Against this order the petitioners who have been added as legal representatives of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 file this revision petition.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that in view of the Full Bench ruling in Perumal Pillai v. Perumal Chetty 112 Ind. Cas. 116 : 28 L.W. 164 : (1928) M.W.N. 434 : A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 914 : 55 M.L.J. 25...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.648; (1929)57MLJ477
ORDER1. The suit out of which the appeal arose was to recover Rs. 8-13-2. The claim for this amount is no doubt a recurring claim as the Government claim to levy water-cess annually. Capitalising at twenty times the amount, the value of the suit is less than Rs. 180. The suit does not involve property or claim of the value of Rs. 10,000 directly. It is then argued that it involves a like claim indirectly, simply because similar questions may arise in this Presidency in other estates or other districts or in connection with other rivers. We do not think that this is the proper interpretation of the word 'indirectly.' If the decision of an issue in this case makes the decision of the same issue in other cases res judicala or some such similar connection can be shown, the value of other disputed matters may be taken into consideration. This is the view taken by one of us and Venkatasubba Rao, J., in C.M.P. No. 793 of 1929 (see Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Sundaraswamier . It is suggested that 24...
ibramsa Rowther Vs. Muhammad Esuf Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad322
Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur allowing an amendment of the plaint in A.S. No. 68 of 1925, which came up before him on appeal from 0. S. No. 309 of 1923, before the District Munsif of Tiruvarur. The suit was to redeem certain properties in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased this property from one Subbiah Pillai under a sale deed dated 9th October 1923 (Ex. B.) and that this Subbiah Pillai was the reversioner to the estate of one Veera Pillai, whose widow had enjoyed the property after her husband's death and had executed the mortgage-deed in question. The defendant set up the case that he had purchased the property from one Swaminatha Pillai the great-grandson of Veera. Pillai's grandfather. From the genealogical tree filed by the plaintiff, it was obvious that his vendor, Subbiah (P.W. No. 4) was one degree more remote from the last male-holder, Veera Pillai, than two other person...
Akarappu Venkanna and ors. Vs. Akarappu Chennayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad900; (1929)57MLJ393
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These applications arise out of a preliminary decree passed in C.S. No. 420 of 1922, a compromise subsequent to the preliminary decree between the parties to the suit, and an order by me on an application to confirm the compromise.2. The facts are shortly these: C.S. No. 420 of 1922 was filed in this Court for partition of the joint family properties belonging to the Akarappu family. A preliminary decree was passed on the 5th December, 1922. On the 25th February, 1926, the decree-holder in C.S. No. 510 of 1926 on the file of the Bombay High Court, who had got a decree against the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 420 of 1922, applied for an attachment of the preliminary decree. The decree of the Bombay High Court is dated 15th June, 1926, and is for Rs. 53,230-9-0. The execution application was transferred to this Court by an order, dated 22nd November, 1926. On the 20th December, 1926, execution was applied for in this Court by the decree-holder in the Bombay suit and th...
Narayana Sahu and anr. Vs. Kraleti Pentamma Alias Appalanarasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad763; 121Ind.Cas.855; (1929)57MLJ310
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This matter has been posted before a Bench owing to the absence of any clear ruling in this Court on the point involved, i.e., whether in an application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 92 read with Rule 89 which is otherwise in order and in time the omission to implead the auction-purchaser till after the expiry of 30 days allowed for the application is fatal to it. The facts are simple and undisputed. Property was sold in execution of a decree on 12th April, 1926. On 28th April, 1926, the defendant's pleader filed a lodgment schedule mentioning in the cause-title the names of the plaintiff (decree-holder) and defendant (judgment-debtor) and the auction-purchaser who was the decree-holder's son and praying for an order to deposit the amount required by Order 21, Rule 89 and stating that the amount was deposited for setting aside the sale. The challan was accordingly issued and the amount was deposited on 11th May within 30 days. The Court had been close...
V.E. Rajabhadur Mudaliar Vs. A.M. Visvanatha Reddiar and A.R. Muthuswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ481
Krishnan Pandalal, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dated 31st October, 1927, by which he dismissed the petitioner's objection petition to the election of 1st respondent as the President of the Union Board of Arkonam. By G.O. No. 4290, L. & M., dated 5th October, 1926, the Local Government had in pursuance of Section 45(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act dissolved the said Union Board and ordered it to be reconstituted and under Clause (3) of the same section appointed Mr. Muthuswami Aiyar, Sub-Magistrate of Arkonam (2nd respondent), as Special Officer to exercise all the powers and duties of the Union Board and its President till it was properly reconstituted. The Special Officer was instructed to make arrangements for the election of the nine elected members, and the President, Taluk Board, Ranipet, was requested to nominate the three nominated members, and when that was done the Special Officer was to arrange for the election of t...
S.L. Ramaswamy Chetty and anr. Vs. M.S.A.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad364
Pandalai, J.1. The defendants appeal from a decree declaring that the respondent (plaintiff) is entitled to redeem eleven jewels pledged by him with the appellants, ordering the appellants to produce the same in Court on or before 30th January 1928 and in default to pay the respondent the price thereof i.e., Rs. 11,000, with interest thereon, less Rs. 11,712-9-0 being the amount due to the appellants under the decree in O.S. No. 110 of 1921 or a net amount of Rs. 627-9-8 and also ordering the appellants to pay the respondent his costs of suit. All the parties are Nattukottai Chet ties and appellant 1 is appellant 2's brother's son.2. On 3rd November 1918 at Karaikudi in the Ramnad District the respondent borrowed from the appellants who are jointly carrying on a money lending business in India and the F.M.S., the sum of Rs. 6,000 at 12 per cent interest and pledged with them the jewels mentioned in the schedule to the decree. The debt being unpaid appellant 1 as agent on behalf of appe...
V.E. Rajabahadur Mudaliar Vs. A.M. Viswanatha Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad97; 120Ind.Cas.851
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dated 31st October, 1927, by which he dismissed the petitioner's objection petition to the election of 1st respondent, as the President of the Union Board of Arkonam. By G. O. No. 4290 L and. M, dated 5th October 15)26 the Local Government had, in pursuance of Section 45 (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act dissolved the said Union Board and ordered it to be reconstituted and under Clause (3) of the same section appointed Mr. Muthusami Aiyar, Sub-Magistrate of Arkonam, (2nd respondent), as Special Officer to exercise all the powers and duties of the Union Board and its President, till it was properly re-constituted. The Special Officer was instructed to make arrangements for the election of the 9 elected members, and the President, Taluk Board, Ranipet, was requested to nominate the three nominated members and when that was done the Special Officer was to arrange for the election of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »