Chennai Court August 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: Kesava Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ681
Waller, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Thillaikannu Pillai. The 1st appellant is the murdered man's son. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are respectively the 1st appellant's brother-in-law and father-in-law. Another brother-in-law was charged with them but acquitted. There was, we consider, no ground for differentiating between him and his brother. If the Sessions Judge accepted, as he did, the confessions of the 1st and 3rd appellants and the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11, he should have convicted the 3rd accused as well. The fact that his name did not appear in Ex. E was, comparatively speaking, of very little significance.2. That there was ample motive for the murder is clear. In the first place, Thillaikannu was keeping a woman called Nagu and spending money on her, to which his son and no doubt his wife's family objected. In the next, Thillaikannu's relations with his son's wife (P.W. 2) had given rise to constant quarrels. He had been intimate with he...
Kemgam Swamy and ors. Vs. Vaddadi Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad30; (1929)57MLJ728
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point arises in execution. Is the plaintiff entitled to mesne profits under the decree? The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the plaintiff's claim and the correctness of his order is called in question in this appeal.2. A few facts may be stated. The plaintiff, who was a minor at the date of the suit, claimed her deceased husband's properties from the defendants, who were alleged to have been in unlawful possession. Her husband died in 1913 and the suit was filed in 1919. Judgment was delivered for the plaintiff on the 10th February, 1922, directing delivery of possession of certain im-moveable properties. The judgment contains a further direction which is now material. It runs thus:The mesne profits will be determined by a separate inquiry in execution proceedings.3. An appeal, A.S. No. 220 of 1922, was taken to the High Court and in 1925 the judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed subject to a slight modification, which I need not notice.4. The plaint...
Subbayya Pillai Vs. Sesha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ754
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner is the complainant. He filed a complaint against five persons which was taken on file against accused 2 to 5 as voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and against 1st accused, who is a pleader, as abettor of that offence, under Sections 325 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly who tried the case discharged the 1st accused on the ground that he had not been identified, and framed a charge against the re maining accused of the offence stated. The complainant then applied to the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly to revise the order discharging the 1st accused and the application was granted, the learned Sessions Judge directing further inquiry which was to include affording several of the prosecution witnesses an opportunity of identifying the 1st accused. In Criminal Revision Case No. 952 of 1928, Reilly, J., refused to interfere with this order.2. Meanwhile, as I have said, a charge had been...
Manikka Gounden and anr. Vs. Loganatha Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad852
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point to be decided in this appeal is. Is the order of the lower Court directing sale a valid order?'2. The question arises in execution. The decree in the suit was for money passed by the High Court of Madras on its original side. It was transferred for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Vellore. Certain 17 items of property were attached by the Court which caused two of them to be sold. The decree was partly satisfied but further execution in that Court became impossible, it having; lost territorial jurisdiction, over the other items attached. They were with the exception of one item removed by a. Government notification, from the limits of the Vellore Sub-Court to the local; jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Chittoor. The decree-holder thereupon applied to the former Court for retransmission of the decree to the High Court of Madras. That request was complied with and the High Court in its turn sent the decree for execution to the Chittoor Sub-Co...
Parapatyagar Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Kotigi Earappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad856; 122Ind.Cas.43
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. While the plaintiff was a minor the suit land belonging to him was sold to the defendant by D. Rama-krishna Rao who held a power-of-attorney as agent of Sundaramma, the mother and guardian of the plaintiff. The sale was for Rs. 300 under Ex. 1 dated 3rd February, 1912. The plaintiff's suit was filed within three years after his becoming major, and the prayer in the plaint was to set aside the sale-deed and to recover possession with mesne profits.2. The defendant's plea was that the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts upheld the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has accordingly preferred this second appeal.3. It is better to note the recitals in the sale-deed in the first instance. Such recitals form a contemporaneous record of the representations made to the alienee, on the faith of which the alienee purchased the property. In the sale deed the only recital is that the property was sold for 'our expenses.' N...
Subbayya Pillai Vs. Sesha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad102; 122Ind.Cas.786
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner is the com-plaint. He filed a complaint against five person which was taken on file against accused Nos. 2 to 5 as voluntarily causing grievous hurt, under Section 320, Indian Penal Code, and against 1st accused, who is a Pleader, as abetment of that offence, under Sections 325 and l44, Indian Penal Code. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly who tried the case discharged the 1st accused on the ground that he had not beep identified and framed a charge against the remaining accused of the offence stated. The complainant then applied to the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly to revise the order discharing the 1st accused and the application was granted, the learned Sessions Judge directing further inquiry which was to include affording several of the prosecution witnesses an opportunity of identifying the 1st accused. In Criminal Revision Case No. 952 of 1928, Reilly, J., refused to interfere with this order.2. Meanwhile, as I have said, a charge had be...
In Re: Perumal thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.650
Curgenven, J.1. Five persons were committed for trial in this case on a charge of dacoity under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The Jury found two of them guilty and the remaining three not guilty.2. The prosecution case, as it is to be found in the evidence of P. Ws. Nos. 1 to 3 and in the statement to the Village Munsif Ex. A, is that five and only five persona took part in the dacoity. The point raised in this appeal is that the learned Sessions Judge did not make clear to the Jury the possible consequence of acquitting any of the number of persons charged. In para. 5 of his judgment he rightly says that there were two things they had to be sure about, one being that there was actually a dacoity and the other, whether each of the accused took part in it. Again, in para. 17 he concludes his charge by saying 'If you are satisfied that there was a dacoity, then before you find the accused guilty you should be satisfied that each of the accused was concerned in it, and if you have any r...
Munuswami Mudali and ors. Vs. Jagannadha Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad830
ORDERAnanthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the decree passed in Second Appeal No. 1568 of 1923 by the late learned Chief Justice. The second appeal was disposed of on 24th March 1926 and it was dismissed with costs. The appellants in the second appeal were defendants 2, 3 and 4. The original suit was for recovering possession of certain properties with past profits, Rs. 60 and future profits at the rate of Rs. 60 per year.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the merits. On plaintiffs' appeal to the District Court of Chingleput, the District Judge reversed the District Munsif's decree and on 20th November 1922 gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. Para. 20 of the lower appellate Court's judgment is relevant to the points that I am now considering:Therefore 1 reverse both decrees of the lower Court and in O.S. No. 346 of 1919. I give plaintiff the decree sought for with possession and Rs. 60 mesne profits as deposed to by P.W. 1 and subsequent profit...
Kandasami Chetty and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.788
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The first petitioner has bean convicted under Sections 6 and 7 of the Towns' Nuisances Act, Madras Act III of 1889, of keeping a common gaming house and the remaining petitioners under Section 7 of gaming therein. The expression 'common gaming house' has not been defined in the Act; and, although a definition of the term occurs in Section 3 of the City Police Act, I think that following the two decisions of this Court fane unreported and other reported as In Re: Chinniah 77 Ind. Cas. 303 : 47 M. 426 : 19 L.W. 219 : 46 M.L.J. 309 : (1924) M.W.N. 237 : 34 M.L.T. 195 : 25 Cri.L.J. 367 : A.I.R. 1924 M. 729] the meaning to be attached is substantially that contained in 15 Halsbury 584, namely, a place of public resort where a number of persons are invited to congregate for the purpose of gamiag. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, P. W. No 3, upon whose information the Sub-Inspector took action, states with reference to the place in question that he ha...
(Janapareddi) Venkata Reddi Vs. (Janapareddi) Adhinarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad351
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on a reference to him under Section 30, Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts are as follows: The Special Deputy Collector, Harbour Acquisition, Vizagapatam, made his award on 18th January 1925. As to the apportionment of one of the amounts he awarded, there was a dispute between two claimants. Without deciding their claims he referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 30. The amount in dispute which was referred to the Subordinate Judge's Court was Rs. 1,349. A preliminary objection is raised by the vakil for the respondent that this appeal does not lie to the High Court but to the District Court of Vizagapitam. We think this objection is well founded, After a reference under Section 30 is made to the civil Courts, the decision of the Court cannot be regarded as an award under Part 3 of the Act. In the case reported in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 80 their Lordship...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »