Chennai Court January 1930 Judgments
In Re: Krishnayya Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1930
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ547
ORDER1. This case arises out of a judgment in a Criminal Appeal in which the Appellate Magistrate refused to reverse the conviction of the petitioners on the ground urged before him that the conviction was illegal, because the Trial Court had allowed certified copies of evidence given by the petitioners is defence witnesses in a counter-case to be filed as evidence for the defence in this case. It is contended that the refusal of the Appellate Magistrate is directly opposed to the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Umar Hajee v. King Emperor I.L.R. (1922) M. 117 : 43 M.L.J. 659.2. On another ground raised it appears to us that the Appellate Magistrate's judgment cannot be supported. He considered that Section 167 of the Evidence Act did not compel him to order a retrial merely, because these copies of depositions had been put in, since, to use his words 'without the evidence thus admitted there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges.' He seems to have entirely overlooked the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!(Gandreddi) Naganna and anr. Vs. (Revinipati) Appalaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1021; 129Ind.Cas.59
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Defendant 1 was entitled to one-fourth of the suit lands, and he sold his one-fourth share to defendant 6 on 28th July 1900 for Rs. 500 (Ex. 1). The father of defendants 3 and 5 was entitled to one-fourth of the suit lands, and he sold the said one-fourth share to defendant 6 on 2nd June 1901 for Rs. 500 (Ex. 2). Defendant 1 executed a kadapa on 8th July 1903 to defendant 6 in respect of the lands so purchased by defendant 6. Defendant 6 sold to the plaintiff on 24th June 1917 (Ex. A) the half-share in the suit lands purchased by him under Exs. 1 and 2. The plaintiff sued to declare his title to a moiety of the plaint lands and to recover possession of the same after partition. Defendant 6 did not appear in the suit; the other defendants contended that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was a sham transaction, that when the properties were sold to defendant 6, defendant 6 agreed to re-convey the properties to the vendors on their repaying Rs. 500, the price m...
Tag this Judgment!(Pulavarthi) Lakshmanaswami Vs. Abdul Khudavande Sahib Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad703
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This petition arises from an application to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bhimavaram by the Union Board of Akiveedu under Section 221, Local Boards Act, to realize from the respondents the amount of a penalty which the Union Board alleged the respondents had incurred by reason of unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon the property of the Union Board. The Sub-Magistrate, instead of proceeding under the section to hear the application and the objections if any and to determine them, made an order on 27th March 1929 that in pursuance of two Government Orders respectively 4657 L & M dated 23rd November 1928 and 770 L & M dated 13th February 1929, the Union Board could not proceed before the Magistrate, before it had exhausted all other processes for the recovery of the dues. The Board has petitioned this Court to revise the said order.2. I think the order of the Sub-Magistrate was wrong. The Government Orders, mentioned above are at best only advisory and amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami Vs. Abdul Khudavande Sahib Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1930
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.110
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This petition arises from an application to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bhimavaram by the Union Board of Akiveedu under Section 221, Local Boards Act, to realize from the respondents the amount of a penalty which the Union Board alleged the respondents had incurred by reason of unauthorised occupation or encroachment upon the property of the Union Board. The Sub-Magistrate, instead of proceeding under the section to hear the application and the objections if any and to determine them, made an order on 27th March, 1929, that in pursuance of two Government Orders respectively 4657 L. & M. dated 23rd November 1928 and 770 L. & M. dated 13th February, 1929, the Union Board could not proceed before the Magistrate, before it had exhausted all other processes for the recovery of the dues. The Board has petitioned this Court to revise the said order.2. I think the order of the Sub-Magistrate was wrong. The Government Orders, mentioned above are at best only advisory an...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad797; (1931)61MLJ354
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of our brother Waller, J., in connection with the insolvency of one Venkataratnam Naidu. The insolvent was employed in the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway and was subscribing for a provident fund. By May, 1927, he got deeply into debt, his lands and house were mortgaged to the extent of Rs. 8,000 and odd and he had unsecured debts to the extent of Rs. 3,900. In May, 1927, a creditor obtained a decree and attached his salary, a notice being sent to the Railway Company. On this the Railway Company put an end to his services and paid the amount lying to his credit in the provident fund into his hands. This amounted to Rs. 3,000 and he paid it to his wife in June or July. On 10th August he was adjudicated insolvent on his own petition. After the wife got the Rs. 3,000, Rs. 600 out of this was utilised by her for redeeming jewels of hers which were pledged by the husband with a creditor. The Official Assignee now prays for an order agai...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Sait and Ors. Vs. the Bank of Mysore, Ltd., by Its Manager, P.W. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad512; (1930)59MLJ28
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of our brother Kumaraswami Sastri, J., decreeing a suit by the Bank of Mysore based on a mortgage deed, dated the 6th May, 1925, for Rs. 1,00,000.2. The plaint (paragraph 6) alleges that the defendants paid on the whole Rs. 18.672-2-0 up to 6th February, 1927, which the plaintiff Bank appropriated in a particular manner. The suit is to recover the balance. The defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint but plead that 'on account of the relationship existing between them and at their request, the said Sir Haji Ismail Sait has paid to the plaintiff the entire amount due on the mortgages referred to in the plaint. The actual date of the payments are not known personally to these defendants but they are informed and believe the same to be true that by 3rd March, 1926 or thereabouts the payments aforesaid by Sir Haji Ismail Sait were completed'. The defendants also pleaded in the course of the trial as probabilising the abo...
Tag this Judgment!Kandunni Nair Vs. Ittunni Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad597; (1930)58MLJ497
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. He is a junior member of a tarwad of which the plaintiff is the manager appointed under a karar. jointly with a younger brother, the 1st defendant acquired a certain property, and the younger brother subsequently died. The plaintiff brought the suit as manager of the tarwad for partition and recovery of the younger brother's half share of the property on the ground that it had passed to the tarwad by inheritance. There was also a prayer for mesne profits from the date of the younger brother's death. In his written statement the 1st defendant alleged that the younger brother's name was only nominally added in the assignment deed and that in fact the whole property was acquired by himself alone. The learned Subordinate Judge has disbelieved this allegation and has given a preliminary decree for partition, which directs that the amount of mesne profits due to the tarwad shall be determined at the time of passing the final decree. The judgment decides...
Tag this Judgment!Golusu Appalanarasiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad705
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the conviction of the petitioner for defamation of the complainant recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Of Vizagapatam in C.C. 33 of 1928 and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam on 16th November 1928.2. Objection is taken to the legality of the conviction on the ground that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were vitiated by one of two alternative grounds: (a) that there was no complaint before the Magistrate on which he could take cognizance of the case and that the Magistrate, though informed of this defect at the very outset and objection was taken to his proceeding further with the case, brushed aside and took cognizance of the case i.e. issued process against the accused; (b) if the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate be regarded as a continuation of those which were started by a previous complaint instituted by the complainant, the said complaint had been transferred by the Sub-Di...
Tag this Judgment!Burham Sahib Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad671; 126Ind.Cas.603
ORDERPandalai, J.1. The petitioner was convict ed under Sections 161 and 116, Indian Penal Code, of abetment of bribery by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Madura and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and this conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the learned. Sessions Judge of Madura. The present petition is by the accused to have the conviction and sentence set aside.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued in the first instance that of the witnesses who spoke to the petitioner's act only one had actually seen the offer of the money and the others had only seen him in Col. Harley's bungalow, that Col. Harley himself was unable to identify the petitioner and that his description of the petitioner as a Revenue Inspector was belated and that the whole case was due to the influence of the petitioner's enemies who were friends of Col. Harley. This is an argument purely upon the evidence in the case and all these aspects of the evidence have been considered by both ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Murugiah Pandaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ622
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the order, dated 29th August, 1929, of the Bench Magistrates of Tiruvarur acquitting the respondents respectively the occupier and owner of premises within the Municipality of Tiruvarur, who were charged at the instance of the Municipality with having disobeyed a notice under Section 182(1) of the District Municipalities Act to remove certain alleged encroachments in front of the said premises. The Bench without going into the merits of the charge acquitted the respondents upon the ground that under Section 182 (1) of the District Municipalities Act notice to remove obstruction or encroachment can only be given to either the occupier or the owner but not to both. The Bench further held that the Municipality not having elected to proceed against the one or the other but having proceeded against both, the prosecution case failed. The only question in this appeal is whether this view is correct. In my view it is no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »