Chennai Court May 1929 Judgments
A. Ramalinga Udayar Vs. Ramasami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ478
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This case has already been before the High Court twice. As the learned Additional District Magistrate remarks, the complaint was filed in 1927. Devadoss, J., at one stage of the case suggested that the charge may as well be amended. In pursuance of that suggestion, the charge was as a matter of fact amended. The question then arose whether the accused was entitled to have the witnesses who were already examined in the case re-examined. The learned Additional District Magistrate held that he was not entitled to have the witnesses already examined re-examined simply because the charge was technically amended. He was corrected by this Court and Reilly, J., in his order, dated 20th September, 1928, directed examination of the witnesses who were already examined in the case. After that a further difficulty has arisen. The accused seems to have filed two lists of witnesses, the first on the 8th August, 1927 and the second on the 14th September, 1927. The second...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramalinga Udayar Vs. Ramaswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.785
ORDERAnantakrishna Iyer, J.1. This case has already been before the High Court twice. As the learned Additional District Magistrate remarks, the complaint was filed in 1927. Devadoss, J., at one stage of the case suggested that the charge may as well be amended. In pursuance of that suggestion, the charge was, as a matter of fact, amended. The question then arose whether the accused was entitled to have the witnesses who were already examined in the case re-examined. The learned Additional District Magistrate held that he was not entitled to have the witnesses already examined re-examined simply because the charge was technically amended. He was corrected by this Court and Reilly, J., in his order dated 20th September, 1928, directed examination of the witnesses who were already examined in the case. After that a further difficulty has arisen. The accused seems to have filed two lists of witnesses, the first on. the 8th August, 1927, and the second on the 14th September, 1927. The seco...
Tag this Judgment!C. Sachidanandam, Agent, Addison and Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Sowmya Gopala Aiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad839; (1929)57MLJ518
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This case raises an interesting point. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, dated the 3rd November, 1927. There were four accused. The first accused was charged with criminal breach of trust by-obtaining from Messrs. Addison and Co. two motor buses on a hire purchase agreement, Ex. B. This man obtained the buses from Addison and Co. and signed the hire purchase agreement. The second accused also came to Madras with him and signed Ex. B and also the lien agreement. Ex. B is dated 23rd September, 1924. On the 10th August by Ex. O the buses were transferred to the second accused at Madura, the hire purchase agreement having terminated on the 27th April, 1925 under its conditions, as the first accused did not pay the instalments due. On the 25th December, 1925, by Ex. Q, the second accused transferred them to the third accused at Madura. The learned Magistrate convicted the first accused, being convinced that he made a dishone...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusamier Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad748; 122Ind.Cas.651
Waller, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of having caused the deaths of three men and grievous hurt to six others. He admits that, in the course of a riot, he fired his gun seven times, but pleads that he did so in the lawful exercise of his right of private defence. The Sessions Judge, though he disbelieved every word of the evidence of eyewitnesses relied on by the prosecution, rejected the appellant's plea as well.2. The riot took place in a village called Angambakam, which is inhabited mainly toy Mudaliars and Adidravidas. The Mudaliars were split into two factions, to one of which, the smaller, the Adidravidas attached themselves. This led to the larger faction deciding to get rid of the Adidravidas and to import labourers into the village from outside. As a result, the unfortunate Adidravidas were deprived of their means of livelihood and many of them had to emigrate. Matters came to a head in August last. On the 10th of that month a crowd of Adidravidas attacked the house o...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Mummidi Royal and anr. Vs. Raja Somasekara Chikka Royal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad783
Jackson, J.1. Under a compromise decree in the Sub-Court, North Arcot, dated 30th October 1927, the zemindar of Punganur was directed to pay the plaintiff arrears of maintenance at Rs. 30 per mensem and future maintenance at Rs. 40 per mensem and in the event of his fail-lure to pay the maintenance amount due as aforesaid the plaintiff was at liberty to execute the decree and recover the amount. The plaintiff applied for execution on 27th April 1927 for arrears of maintenance from 1st March 1922 to 1st March 1925. The zemindar pleaded adjustments amounting to Rs. 5,527-7-0. The question was then raised whether under Order 21, Rule 2 (3) such adjustments being uncertified could be recognized by the executing Court.2. The case law applicable to this question has been exhaustively cited by the learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. A. C. Sampath Ayyangar but the parties are agreed that all the law relevant to this case is correctly set forth in Lodd Govinda Doss v. Rajah of Karvetnagar [...
Tag this Judgment!(Parambathkandi) Olayatt Kunhu Vs. Ussan Kasim Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad841
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the order of the lower Court giving conditional permission to the petitioner to defend the case only on giving security is right. It has been found by the Court that the petitioner has a defence which has to be considered. It has also found that the plaintiff has seemingly a strong case. In view of the opinion of the learned Judge which I have stated above it cannot be said that there are no bona fides on the part of defendant 2. In these circumstances I think the learned Judge should have granted permission to the petitioner to defend the case unconditionally. Of course this Court interferes only very rarely under Section 115, Civil P.C. But when the conclusion of the Judge is obviously opposed to the finding expressed in the body of the judgment. I think it is a case where this Court should interfere and set aside the order. The order is therefore set aside. Each party will bear its own costs. Of course the or...
Tag this Judgment!(Kuruganti) Sivaramiyya and ors. Vs. Rajah of Venkatagiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad339a
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The Rajah of Venkatagiri instituted O.S. No. 51 of 1923, on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court of Ongole, to recover jodi and some other dues from the defendants who are agraharamdars of Konagarivari Palem alias Bodapalem agraharam. The main question in dispute so far as this second appeal is concerned is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover jodi at the rate of Rs. 173 per fasli, or whether he is entitled to recover only at the rate of Rs. 17-8-0. Both the lower Courts upheld the plaintiff's claim to recover at the higher rates and the defendants have preferred this second appeal.2. The facts in connexion with this matter are not in dispute. From Ex. 1, which is a copy of the Sannad granted to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants, i.e., to the original agraharamdars in 1721, it is seen that the jodi payable was Rs. 17-8-0. It has also been found by both the lower Courts that even from a period prior to 1802, the date of Ex. B, th...
Tag this Judgment!(Muttavi) Venkatacharyulu and anr. Vs. (Vemavarapu) Ramkrishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad439
Pandalai, J.1. This second appeal is by defendants, 2 and 3 father and son, against the decree of the lower appellate Court by which it varied the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit so far as defendant'(respondent 1) Sri Venkatesa Swami Devasthanam was concerned and gave a decree instead against these appellants. The suit was brought upon a promissory note executed to the plaintiff respondent, 2 a cousin of the appellants for Rs. 700, dated 16th November 1917. The suit was brought against the Devasthanam mentioned above, and against the present appellants, the first of whom executed the promissory note and the second of whom was impleaded as the son of the debtor. The plaintiff's case was that appellant 1 was the archaka and manager of the Devasthanam and had borrowed this sum as such for purposes binding on the Devasthanam and therefore, a decree was prayed in the first instance against the Devasthanam and, in the alternative, if it was found that...
Tag this Judgment!C. Sachidanadam, Agent Addison and Co., Ltd. Vs. V. Sowmya Gopala Aiya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.75
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This case raises an interesting point. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, dated the 3rd November 1927. There were four accused. The first accused was charged with criminal breach of trust by obtaining from Messrs. Addison & Co., 2 motor buses on a hire purchase agreement, Ex. B. This man obtained the buses from Addison & Co., and signed the hire purchase agreement. The second accused also came to Madras with him and signed Ex. B and also the lien agreement. Exhibit B is dated 23rd September, 1924. On the 10th August by Ex. 0 the buses were transferred to the second accused at Madura, the hire purchase agreement having terminated on the 27th April, 1925, under its conditions, as the first accused did not pay the instalments due. On the 25th December, 1925, by Ex. Q the second accused transferred them to the third accused at Madura. The learned Magistrate convicted the first accused, being convinced that he made a dishones...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Chinna Mummidi Royay Vasavant Bahadur Vs. Raja Somasekara Chikka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.594
Jackson, J.1. Under a compromise decree in he Subordinate Judge's Court, North Arcot, dated 30th October, 1917, the, Zemindar of Punganur was directed to pay the plaintiff arrears of maintenance at Rs. 30 per mensem and future maintenance at Rs. 40 per mensem and in the event of his failure to pay the maintenance amount due as aforesaid the plaintiff was at liberty to execute the decree and recover the amount. The plaintiff applied for execution on 27th April, 1925, for arrears of maintenance from 1st, March, 1922, to 1st March, 1925. The zemindar pleaded adjustments amounting to Rs. 5,527-7-0. The question was then raised whether under Order XXI, Rule 2(3) such adjustments being uncertified could be recognised by the Executing Court.2. The case-law applicable to this question has been exhaustively cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. A.C. Sampath Iyengar but the parties are agreed that all the law relevant to this case is correctly set forth in Lodd Govinda Doss v. Raj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »