Chennai Court September 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.
Thazhekat Manayil Karnavar Narayanan Thirumupu and anr. Vs. Poonthurut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.460
1. This appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 18 of 1925 on the file of the Sub Court of Tellicherry which was a suit for an account of the management of the Payyanur Devaswom by defendants Nos. 1 to 6 in their capacity as Uralars from 1909, for the recovery of the sum that might be found due as a result of the accounts from the defendants personally and from their family property and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Devaswom by the 11th plaintiff who was appointed Samudayi by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to JO. The claim in respect of the 11th plaintiff was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge but the relief in respect of the account was decreed. The 1st defendant filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his successor, the present karnavan of the Thazhekkat mana, has been added as his legal representative, the 2nd appellant.2. The suit Devaswom is known as 'Grama Kshetram' i. c, village temple, and is a famous temple of North Ma...
M. Basavayya Vs. Majeti Bapanna Rao Sowcar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ349
1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree obtained by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 86 of 1913 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Masulipatam, is invalid as against him, and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from executing' that decree as against him (plaintiff) or his property. In that suit, the present plaintiff who was then a minor was impleaded as a defendant represented by the present 3rd defendant as his guardian ad litem.2. Both the Courts below have found that the guardian, ad litem was guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of that suit by omitting to set up an important plea, which was available as a ground of attack against the then plaintiff's claim. No attempt has been made to challenge this finding.3. The question argued before us is one of limitation. It is admitted on both sides that this suit is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, but the dispute is as to the...
(Annapragada) Visvanadham Vs. (Annapragada) Mangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad236
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued for a declaration of his title to the house and site 'A' marked in the plaint plan and for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon his portion and from pulling down the wall between the portions A and B. Defendant 1 is the widow of the plaintiff's deceased brother. Her case was that the suit house was not divided between the parties but that for convenience of enjoyment, the plaintiff was in possession of one portion and that she was in possession of another portion of the same, and that the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff was the owner of one portion of the house was not correct. It would seem that, after the death of defendant l's husband, there was an arrangement evidenced by Ex. 1 dated 18th November 1901 by which certain properties were given to defendant 1 by the plaintiff. It would also seem that, subsequently, with reference to the lands covered by Ex. 1 th...
K.V. Ayyaswami Pattar and anr. Vs. M.R.Ry. Manavikrama ZamorIn Rajah A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad430; (1930)58MLJ89
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is from a judgment of Phillips, J., in S.A. No. 1520 of 1922. The respondent here was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 26 of 1918 in the Court of the District Munsif at Alathur. He sued for recovery of possession of land from the appellants here, who were the defendants in that suit. The suit, with the exception of a small item which was decreed in the plaintiff's favour, was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar and he also dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff then presented a second appeal to this High Court and Phillips, J., held that the suit was not barred by limitation and as there were other points in the case for determination he referred the appeal back to the Lower Appellate Court for decision on those other points and any other points that might legally arise. He stated that the view of the case set out before him did not seem to have...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Vedi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad185
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The Revision Petition is presented by the Public Prosecutor against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Salem in the following circumstances: In C.C. No. 103 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hosur, certain of the prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. Application was then made on behalf of the accused under Section 162, Criminal P.C., for copies of the statements which these witnesses had made to the police. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused the request on the ground that the proper occasion for making it had gone by. The learned Sessions Judge, however, pointed out that the accused would have a right of further cross-examination after the framing of a charge, and in view of this circumstance ruled that copies should be given.2. The point not dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, but raised here, is whether an accused person can apply for, and be granted, such copies (where not already applied for and...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Vedi Alias Vathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.463
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This revision petition is presented by the Public Prosecutor against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Salem in the following circumstances. In C. C. No. 103 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hosur, certain of the prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. Application was then made on behalf of the accused under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code for copies of the statements which these witnesses had made to the Police, The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused the request on the ground that the proper occasion for making it had gone by. The learned Sessions Judge, however, pointed out that the accused would have a right of further cross examination after the framing of a charge, and in view of this circumstance ruled that copies should be given.2. The point not dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, but raised here is whether an accused person can apply for, and be granted, such copies, (where not alread...
In Re: T.M.A. Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ763
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by a Bench of Magistrates. He comes up in revision on the ground that the judgment convicting him is illegal as it has been signed only by the Chairman of the Bench. We think that it is a perfectly good ground of objection. Section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is divided into three sub-Sections. The first provides that records and judgments shall be written by the presiding officer in English or in the language of the Court or in his mother tongue. The second prescribes that if authorised by the Local Government a Bench may employ a clerk to prepare the record or judgment which shall be signed by each member of the Bench present and taking part in the proceedings. The third directs that, if no such authority has been given the record--which presumably, includes the judgment--shall be prepared by a member of the Bench and signed 'as aforesaid' and shall then be 'the proper record.' The first sub-section says nothing about signing the re...
P.A.L. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar (Died) and anr. Vs. V.N.S. Chockalingam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad109; (1929)57MLJ817
Wallace, J.1. The question for decison in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved the caste custom set up by him in derogation of the Hindu Law of inheritance. The plaintiff is of Nattukottai Chetti caste. It is a custom in that caste, when the daughter of a house is married, for her parents to present to her jewels, vessels and money which become her stridhanam. There is also a custom which has been recognised by this Court in A.S. No. 196 of 1923, that if that married daughter dies without issue, that stridhanam reverts to the donors, her parents. The plaintiff before us contends for a custom that that stridhanam reverts to the parents even when the woman has had a female issue and that female issue herself dies without issue. Under ordinary Hindu Law a female issue would on the death of the mother inherit her stridhanam holding a limited interest therein, and on her own death without issue it would revert to her father, the husband of the original donee. The plaintiff conten...
(Kidambi) Tayamma and ors. Vs. (Kidambi) Varadacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad827
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In dealing with this matter, we labour under some disadvantage as neither of us was a member of the Bench that disposed of the appeal.2. The petitioners are defendants 27 to 29. The petition is for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was brought by a reversioner questioning certain alienations made by the widow of the last male holder. The alienation in question is of the year 1875. The widow sold certain lands to the father of defendant 27. The High Court agreeing with the Subordinate Judge held that no necessity for the alienation was proved and on that ground the sale was set aside. The first question that arises is, is the judgment of the High Court an affirming judgment? The petitioners contend that in regard to certain other alienations, the High Court took a different view from that taken by the trial Judge and it is therefore argued that the decree of the High Court must be taken to have varied that of the lower Court, The fallacy of this ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Munusami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad448
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. Accused was acquitted for an offence under Section 224, I.P. C, because his arrest in his house by a searching abkari officer was held to be illegal.2. The point taken by the learned Public Prosecutor is that under Section 30, Act i of 1886, the Collector may issue a warrant authorizing a search, and under Section 31 an abkari or police officer of a certain rank after recording reasons may search. The officer in the latter case under Section 31 may, if necessary, arrest, but, though the person to whom a warrant is given, may be an officer of the same rank, he is not authorized under Section 30 or any other section to arrest. It is anomalous that an officer armed with nothing more than his own report can arrest, and an officer armed with a regular search warrant cannot arrest.3. I fully see the anomaly,.but I am unable to read the Act so as to avoid it. The Act seems to be badly drafted.4. In these circumstances, the acquittal must s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »