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.
Kandasami Chetti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad128
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. Petitioner 1 has been convicted under Sections 6 and 7, Towns Nuisance Act, Madras Act 3 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, City Police Act, I think that following two decisions of this Court one unreported and the other reported as Chinniah, In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 723 the meaning to be attached is substantially that contained in 15 Hals. 584, namely a place of public resort where a number of persons are invited to congregate for the purpose of gaming. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witness P.W. 3, upon whose information the Sub-Inspector took action, states with reference to the place in question that he had seen the accused and others also always gaming with cards, betting money and gambling, that accused 1 was collecting Rangu Kasu (which is some kind o...
Subba Goundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad193
Waller, J.1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed and his conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was altered into one of one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 60, with a further two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. He asks us in revision to say that the sentence passed on him by the appellate court is illegal as amounting to an enhancement. He has the support of several decisions, for example, Bhola Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 Pat. 568 which followed King Emperor v. Sagwa [1901] 23 All. 497, The ratio decidendi in these cases was this-that, in the event of the fine not being paid, the prisoner would serve a sentence equivalent to that passed by the trial Court, and still be liable to have the fine collected from him. The same view was taken in Emperor v. Mehar Chand [1914] 36 All. 485. With great respect, it seems to us that the proviso, to Section 386(1)(b), Criminal P.C. takes much...
In Re: Mohamad Kasim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.351
Curgenven, J.1. The effect of the decision in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh 20 A. 90 : A.W.N. (1897) 203 is very considerably weakened by that in Baldeo v. John Singh 22 A. 55 : (1899) A.W.N. 172 which holds that a defect in the signature of a plaint or even the absence of any signature, it being found that the suit was filed with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, is not ordinarily a ground for interference in appeal. Much less then is it a ground for interference by a District Munsif under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act, or by this Court in exercise of its powers of revision, if petitioner cannot assert any specific prejudice to himself arising out of the irregularity. I, therefore, dismiss the Civil Revision Petition....
Rathai Ammal and ors. Vs. R. Subramania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.377
1. On the first question-as to the date of the 1st respondent's (R. Subramania Iyer's) birth--we see no reason to differ from the Court below. On the next, whether, on the terms of the decree, the respondent should not furnish security, we think that the intention was that the minor's next friend should furnish security. He could not do so himself. Now that he is a major, no security is necessary. Apart from that, the decree provides that security should be furnished only if the amount was paid by a certain date. The only remaining question is whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Two Madras Oases have been cited. The first is, Narasimha Deo Garu v. Krishnachandra Deo Garu 52 Ind. Cas. 725 : 37 M.L.J. 256 : (1919) M.W.N. 440 : 10 L.W. 156. It floes not consider the applicability of Section 4 of the Act. The other is Marri Narasayya v. Peruri Krishnamurthi : AIR1928Mad1255 . It is directly in point and we propose to follow it. What Sectio...
In Re: Subba Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.125
ORDER1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed and his conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was altered into one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 60 with a further 2 months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment He asks in revision to say that the sentence passed on him by the Appellate Court is illegal as amounting to an enhancement He has the support of several decisions; for example, Bhola Singh v. Emperor : AIR1924Pat563 which followed King Emperor v. Sagwa 23 A. 497 : (1901)A.W.N. 176 The ratio decidendi in these cases was this-that, in the event of the fine not being paid, the prisoner would serve a sentence equivalent to that passed by the trial Court and still be liable to have the fine collected from him. The same view was taken in Emperor v. Mehar Chand 24 Ind. Cas. 607 : 36 A. 485 : 12 A.L.J. 827 : 15 Cri. L.J. 519. With great respect it seems to us that the proviso to Section 386 (I) (b) o...
P.R. Narayanaswami Chettiar Vs. R. Subbaratnam Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.33; (1929)57MLJ551
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in O.P. No. 393 of 1926 setting aside the election of the 1st respondent in the Court below to the 12th ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality on the application of a voter.2. The facts of the case may be stated thus,3. In October, 1925, a list of voters was prepared for the ward in question. This list contained 61 names which were not included in the previous list of voters. The election was held in September, 1926. Forty one of the sixty-one new voters attended the election and Voted. The petitioner who was then acting as an agent for the 2nd respondent, who was one of the candidates for the election, challenged these forty-one votes on the ground that they were not validly put on the electoral roll. Even when the names appeared in the preliminary list, Ex. A3 objection was taken to the inclusion of these names, but the revising authority decided against the objecti...
Ulaganatha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Molaveedu Alagappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad903; 122Ind.Cas.161
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in E.P. No. 159 of 1926 in O.S. No. 92 of 1916. This execution petition prayed that the immovable properties of respondents 1 to 10 should be attached and sold and it was allowed. The appellants are respondents 7 to 10 in the execution petition and defendants 7 to 10 in the suit. The respondent is the assignee decree-holder.2. The history of the execution proceedings which led up to this order is somewhat complicated. The main points are as follows:The respondent's predecessor-in-title had instituted a suit O.S. No. 92 of 1916 on a mortgage. On 29th September 1917 a compromise decree between the parties was passed. A final decree was passed on 14th September 1918 and a personal decree on 23rd October 1919. By the terms of the razinama decree out of Rs. 13,200 settled as the amount due from the date of the plaint with subsequent interest and costs, Rs. 2,100 was to be remitted by the plaintiff in favou...
Sayyapureddi Abbayya Dhora Alias Appan Dhora and ors. Vs. Sayam Appann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.195
Anantkrishna Iyer, J.1. In this case, the learned Advocates who appeared for the appellants and the respondents represented to me that appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have compromised the matter which is the subject of this second appeal with the respondents and that so far as the said appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned they withdraw the appeal. The second appeal will accordingly be dismissed so far as appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned by reason of that agreement without floats. I have to proceed with the second appeal in so far as the other appellants are concerned.2. The original suit was instituted by two plaintiffs, of whom the 2nd plaintiff is the brother's son of the 1st plaintiff, to redeem a usufructuary mortgage outstanding in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiffs' case was that on the 19th of August, 1893, the 1st plaintiff and the late Ramamurty Dhora, who was the paternal uncle's grandson of the 1st plaintiff, borrowed from the 1st defendant Re. 800 and exe...
Ramalinga Chetty and anr. Vs. the Vellore Mercantile Bank, Ltd., by Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad136; (1929)57MLJ822
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-bank against the defendants for the recovery-;.oi, Rs. 14,523-12-0 alleged to be due on a promissory note executed; by defendants 1, 6 and 7 and one Venkatesa Chetti (deceased:) son of 2nd defendant for Rs. 10,000 payable with interest at Rs. 1-6-0 per cent. per mensem. It is alleged that the defendants paid interest amounting to Rs. 262-8-0 and have not paid the balance. The plaintiff's case is that defendants 1. and 2 and one Ramakrishna Chetty, the deceased father of defend ants 4 and 5, were undivided brothers and formed members of a. joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, of which; the 1st defendant and the son of the 2nd defendant who was the second executant of the suit promissory note were the manag-ing members and that the 1st defendant and his deceased brother-Venkatesa Chetti, had been carrying on a trade for which the suit money was borrowed on behalf and for the benefit of. the joint family including de...
L.R. Rama Iyer Vs. S. Andiappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad850
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S. No. 119 of 1924 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tinnevelly against the present defendants 1 and 2. In execution of that decree he attached certain moneys alleged to be due to them from defendant 4 in the case. Notice was issued to defendant 4 who contended that no money was due from him to defendants 1 and 2. The Court enquired into the matter and rejected the application of the decree-holder for attachment of the said monies upholding the contention of defendant 4 in that petition. 'The decree-holder has accordingly instituted O.S. No. 137 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Palamcottah against defendants 1 and 2, the original debtors, and against defendant 4 in whose hands the decree-holder alleged the judgment-debtor had monies and he also joined as a party defendant 3 to whom nominally it is said defendants 1 and 2 have transferred the debt due from defendant 4 to themselves. Issues were framed on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »