Chennai Court July 1929 Judgments
In Re: Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ555
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. These are three applications presented by the 1st accused to revise the orders of the 4th Presidency Magistrate, Georgetown, passed in the following circumstances. Complaints were laid against the petitioner in each of three cases under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. The predecessor of the present learned Magistrate heard the prosecution evidence and was then transferred. The present Magistrate on taking up the case formed the conclusion that it was one which should be tried by a Court of Session inasmuch as it involved the offences also of forgery and using as genuine a forged document, rendered punishable by Sections 467 and 471, I..P.C, respectively. That being so, the question arose as to the procedure to be thereupon adopted. Applications were made by the petitioner for a de novo trial and in the orders against which these revision petitions are preferred the learned Presidency Magistrate has declined to grant them for certain reasons which he gives.2. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Tummalapalli Subbayya Vs. Tummalapalli Papayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad789
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition fried by the plaintiff. A preliminary decree was passed on 2nd December 1924. After the preliminary decree there were some proceedings for getting a final decree and after examination of two witnesses the plaintiff and defendant 1 filed a statement agreeing to abide by the decision of defendant 3. This was on 28th October 1925. The suit was adjourned, and no time was fixed. On 18th November 1925, the commission was revoked as the commissioner who had been appointed under the preliminary decree did not submit his report. One witness was examined on 28th November 1925, and his statement of account Ex. A was put id. Defendant 1 put in an application on 30th November 1925 stating that defendant 3 had got his report or award ready and wanted a decree in terms of that. It is clear from the records that there was no such decision then ready. What happened was that on 22nd December, what is called an award or list of divis...
Tag this Judgment!(Duming Rosario) Saldanha and ors. Vs. Roman Catholic Church
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad434
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff (the Roman Catholic Church, Mermajal) represented by, John Francis Cutinha instituted O.S. No. 404 of 1924 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Mangalore to eject the defendants, the Saldhanas, on the ground that the suit properties belong to the Church and were leased to the father of defendant 1 and the grandfather of the other defendants in 1858 under Ex. D. The lessee died in about 1876 but defendant 1 who is the surviving son and the other defendants who are the grandsons of the original lessee, continued in possession of the properties paying the rent stipulated in Ex. D. On 2nd October 1923 the plaintiff gave notice of ejectment and the suit was instituted on 13th July 1914. The main pleas raised by the defendants are: (1) that the defendants are mulgeni tenants under Ex. D and are not liable to be ejected and (2) that they have acquired mulgeni rights by adverse possession. There were two subsidiary questions of which o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Damodaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.618
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. These are three applications presented by the 1st accused to revise the orders of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, George Town, passed in the following circumstances. Complaints were laid against, the petitioner in each of the 3 cases under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code. The predecessor of the present learned Magistrate heard the prosecution evidence and was then transferred. The present Magistrate on taking up the case formed the conclusion that it was one which should be tried by a Court of Session inasmuch as it involved the offences also of forgery and using as genuine a forged document, rendered punishable by Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code respectively. That being so, the question arose as to the procedure to be thereupon adopted. Applications were made by the petitioner for a de novo trial and in the orders against which these revision petitions are preferred the learned Presidency Magistrate has declined to grant them for certain reasons ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Udayan and ors. Vs. Mannar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad798
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The only question that has been argued in this case by the defendant, who is the appellant before me, is whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3), Civil P.C. The Court of first instance held it was, while the lower appellate Court held it was not.2. The circumstances under which the plea of bar under Order 23, R 1 (3), Civil P.C. was raised are these : The plaintiff's father, Sabapaths Udayan died in 1913 when plaintiff 1 was a minor. On the allegation that the defendant (the maternal uncle of the plaintiff) was appointed as trustee by the plaintiff's father to manage the suit properties and to render account to the plaintiff on plaintiff's attaining majority, the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 329, of 1918 on the file of the Ami District Munsif's Court against the defendant to recover possession of the suit properties and for an account of his management of the properties as a trustee of the plaintiff. The defendant deni...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Naicker and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad103; 122Ind.Cas.788
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioners in this case were discharged under Section 209, Criminal P.C., by the Sub-Magistrate of Koilpatti, the complaint against them being one of house breaking by night and theft in a building under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly, taking the matter up suo motu, issued notice to the accused and passed an order on 14th January 1929, against which this petition is presented, directing that the order of discharge be set aside and, that the Sub-Magistrate do commit the accused to take their trial at the Sessions. No section of the Criminal Procedure Code is quoted as authority for this order but I must take it that it purported to be passed under Section 437, Criminal P.C., because that is the only section under which a revising Court has power to order commitment. If that be so, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have overlooked the circumstance that the section relates only to cases triable exclusively by the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy Udayan and ors. Vs. Mannar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.1
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The only question that has been argued in this case by the defendant, who is the appellant before me, is whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order XXIII. Rule 1(3), Civil Procedure Code. The Court of first instance held it was, while the lower Appellate Court held it was not.2. The circumstances under which the plea of bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3), Civil Procedure Code, was raised are these. The plaintiff's father Sabapathi Udayan died in 1913 when the first plaintiff was a minor. On the allegation that the defendant (the maternal uncle of the plaintiff) was appointed as trustee by the plaintiff's father to manage the suit properties and to render account to the plaintiff on plaintiff's attaining majority, the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 329 of 1918 on the file of the Ami District Munsif's Court against the defendant to recover possession of the suit properties and for an account of his management of the properties as a trustee of ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kanniappan Vs. Kullammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad194; 126Ind.Cas.613
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a Revision Petition against an order of the Third Presidency Magistrate granting the petitioner maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 5 per mensem in respect of her younger child. The question in issue is whether the counter-petitioner has been shown to be the father of that child.2. The first point taken is that the learned Presidency Magistrate has overlooked the provisions of Section 112, Evidence Act. He appears to find that petitioner's husband divorced her, but he does not explain, what meaning he attaches to that term, aid using it in the sense of a legal dissolution of the marriage it is clear that no divorce has taken place. I must take it, therefore, that, in the language of Section 112, the child was born 'during the continuance of a valid marriage' between the petitioner and her husband. It has then to be shown, for the petitioner to succeed, that the parties to that marriage 'had no access to each other at any time when he (the child) could ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Gajapathi Naidu and Two ors. Vs. Jeevammal Alias Padmavathi Ammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad765; 122Ind.Cas.512; (1929)57MLJ253
Krishnan Pandalal, J.1. The third issue has been set down for trial as a preliminary issue. It is as follows:3. Even if there be one (i.e., a custom in the family permitting re-marriage), does such a custom override the provisions of the Hindu Widows' Re-marriage Act and is the 1st defendant entitled to retain the properties?2. The facts on which this issue has to be determined can be gathered from the pleadings. The plaintiffs and 1st defendant are Naidus by caste and the plaintiffs claim to be the nearest reversioners of 1st defendant's first husband, the deceased Madanagopal Naidu, whom she married in 1910 and who died issueless in April, 1915. The suit is for possession of the immoveable properties mentioned in A schedule which are admittedly properties which 1st defendant inherited from her first husband. Plaintiffs allege that there were other properties but that is disputed and this question is dealt with in the other issues. The 1st defendant who was a minor at the date of her ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramanujam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ457
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. These proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act were instituted against the petitioner on a report by Head Constable No. 1346 to the Sub-Inspector of Kumbakonam. In the charge framed against him it was alleged that he drove Bus No. 333 in Kaluthai Tope Road, Kumbakonam, and 'instead of stopping his bus on seeing Bus No. 416, which came in the opposite direction, and without caring for the regulation under which the C.P.I. (the Circle Inspector) asked him to stop, drove very fast.' There are two separate actions imputed in this charge, the first being that the accused failed to stop his bus on seeing Bus No. 416. I understand it to be the rule that, when two motor buses are about to pass each other, it is the duty of one of them to stop, presumably in the interests of safety. It has been admitted, however, by the prosecution in this case that, on the occasion in question, it was the duty of the diver of the other Bus No. 416 to stop his vehicle and accordingly the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »