Chennai Court October 1930 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.
The Registrar, High Court Vs. Kodangi Alias Arunachalam Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1930
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.312; (1932)62MLJ425
Wallace, J.1. The two questions referred to the Full Bench are:--When a charge is made by a complainant to the Police against more than one individual, and the Police, while charging before the Court one or more of such individuals of the offence complained of, do not charge them all, is a complaint of the Court under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, necessary to prosecute the complainant under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the person or persons whom the Police have not charged before the Court; second, if the answer is in the negative, is such a complaint under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, required on the particular facts of this case owing to the complaint telegram having been exhibited and filed for the prosecution? What question 1 is intended to cover is whether in the circumstances stated the Court had jurisdiction or was competent to act under Section 476. It is unnecessary to go more into detail into the facts. Question No. 1 sufficiently sets out t...
The Registrar, High Court Vs. Kodangi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Mad363
ORDERBeasley, C.J. and Walsh, J.1. On 19th October 1929 at about 6 p.m. or a little earlier a man named Tirumeni Servai was stabbed in the neck at Appantirupathi and died almost immediately. One Malayalam alias Veeranan Ambalam was tried for that offence in the Sessions Court of Madura, convicted of it and sentenced to transportation for life. It was clearly established that Tirumeni Servai was stabbed in a mantapam by the side of the road and this fact is of considerable importance. Shortly after 9 p.m. on the same day Kodangi alias Arunachalam Servai a nephew of the deceased sent a telegram to the District Superintendent of Police at Madura North. It is worded as follows:Self and Tirumeni Servai went to Alagarkoil Road, Alagapuri. Our enemies, Madar Moideen older brother's son of Ottakundi Mohamed Gani's sister's son Raja, Rowther, Anupanadhi Alagumlai Pillai, Vellayakundram Manthayan's son Malayalam, these four stabbed Tirumeni Servai. Tirumeni Servai lying unconscious on Appantirup...
Seenia Pillai Vs. Taluk Board of Shermadevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad200
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected appeals arising out of two suits filed by the Taluk Board of Shermadevi, under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act, for the recovery of arrears of rent due from the defendant. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:2. Defendant is a tenant holding lands in an inam village which is an endowment for a chathram now under the management of the Taluk Board, Shermadevi, which occupies the position of a landholder. The village was originally under the management of the Board of Revenue which exercised supervision and control over public charitable trusts. It is admitted that the rent for the lands in this inam village was from time immemorial payable in kind. As would appear from Ex. A, the letter of Mr. Puckle, I. G. S., sent to the Board of Revenue in 1871, on which the defendant himself mostly relies, the ryots were paying the rent in kind as varam, or patam, or izarah rates, which were by no means uniform and which weighed heavily on the ten...
P.R.M.P.R. Perichiappa Chettiar Vs. Nachiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Mad46
Reilly, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and with which I entirely agree.2. Section 109(a), Civil P.C., gives a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council from any decree made on appeal by a. High Court. Section 110, Civil P.C., qualifies that right of appeal by making two exceptions to it. First there is no appeal Under Section 109(a) if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance or in dispute in the proposed appeal is less than Rs. 10,000 and the decree does not involve directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of that amount or value. Secondly there is no appeal Under Section 109(a) if the decree of the High Court affirms the decision of the Court immediately below the High Court and the proposed appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. These two exceptions, as they partially take away the right of appeal given by Section 109(a), mu...
Kokku Rama Row and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad366; (1931)61MLJ27
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. In this case two persons, Kasi Viswanatha Mudali and Balasundaram, were adjudicated insolvents on the 22nd July, 1929, on a creditor's petition presented on the 2nd March, 1929. Some time before the presentation of that petition, that is on the 23rd August, 1928, the first insolvent, Kasi Viswanatha Mudali, had transferred all his property to himself and two of his numerous creditors, namely K. Rama Rao and B. Kottayya, jointly, on trust for the benefit of his creditors. The deed of trust recites that the arrangement evidenced by it was come to and settled by the six creditors specified in list A thereof after looking into the accounts of the transferor and 'a discussion amongst themselves and with the transferor of the financial position of the transferor' and that the transferor 'intimated unto the said creditors in list A that the other creditors (of whom there were more than 60 as specified in list C) would not disturb the arrangement now come to.' After the...
V.K. Vaiyapuri Chetty Vs. Sinniah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad17; (1930)59MLJ901
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks in revision to set aside the order of the 2nd Class Magistrate, Tittagudi, under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, confirmed by the District Magistrate,. South... Arcot, under Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, giving possession to counter-petitioner of an omnibus taken from the petitioner by the Police- The charge of theft lodged by the counter-petitioner against the petitioner under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, was found to be unsustainable.The case-law on this subject is as follows:In Syed Mohideen Sahib, In re (1883) 2 Weir 667 (Cr. R.C. No. 892 of 1883) it is laid down that the property should ordinarily be delivered to the person by whom it has been produced; and if there is a bona fide dispute the Magistrate may impose conditions upon that person. This is followed in the next case, and purports to be followed in the next after that, where In re Annapurnabai I.L.R. (1877) B. 630, is cited to-the same effect.2. In Kanagasabai v. Em...
Pichaiyappa Chetti and anr. Vs. Govindaraju Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad110
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by defendant 1 (on whose death during the pendency of this appeal, his legal representative was added as appellant 2) and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent 1 for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due under Ex. B, a registered mortgage-deed dated 20th May 1912 and executed by defendant 2's late husband Kuppuswami Naidu in favour of defendant 3 for Rs. 790. Both the lower Courts have given a decree in plaintiff's favour for the recovery of the amount claimed by sale of the mortgaged properties.2. In order to show how this plaintiff sues to recover the sum due under the mortgage-deed Ex. B, which was executed not in his favour, but in favour of defendant 3, the plaint alleges that after the death of the mortgagor (Kuppuswami Naidu), his widow, defendant 2, sold the suit properties to plaintiff under the sale deed dated 7th July 1920 (Ex. A) for Rs. 1,470 for the purpose of discharging the mortgage-de...
V. Abdul Kareem Sahib Vs. A. Abdul Kareem Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad461
Curgenven, J. 1. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of beedies or Indian cigarettes, which he sells wholesale in packages of a thousand. He sued to restrain the defendant, who is also a manufacturer, from selling beedies in wrappers got up to resemble his own. He also claimed damages as compensation for loss incurred, but disallowing these, the learned City Civil Judge has given him a decree restraining the defendant from imitating his wrappers in certain respects, and from this the defendant now appeals. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of objections with respect to a particular feature of she defendant's imitation. Both parties, it will be seen have the same name with only a difference in the first initials. The plaintiff in his evidence has stated that he manufactures as many as ten lakhs of beedies per day, that he has 95 branches for this work, and that he pays tax on an income of Rs. 15,000 per annum. He adds that his beedies are very popular and has acquired a reputation in the...
Annu Avathanigal Vs. Somasundara Avathanigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad185; (1932)62MLJ45
Reilly, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff and defendant, who are brothers, and another brother as members of a joint family owned a village. In 1896 they executed a registered deed of partition, Ex. A, by which they agreed that each brother should be in management of the village for two years in turn and should settle the accounts for his management in July of each year and pay the amounts due to the other brothers. The defendant was in management under that arrangement for faslis 1326 and 1327. The plaintiff sued for what was due to him for those faslis. The defendant in his written statement claimed to set off what was due to him from the plaintiff for the plaintiff's period of management, faslis 1324 and 1325. The District Judge found that the defendant's claim for those two earlier faslis was barred, as it should be taken to be governed by Article 89 of the Limitation Act. On second appeal Mr. Justice Wallace found that the defendant's claim in respect of those two faslis was in time...
Subramania Aiyar (Died) and ors. Vs. Srila Sri Vaithilinga Pandara San ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad641; (1931)60MLJ590
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The legal representatives of the 1st defendant are the appellants. The suit properties originally belonged to one Ramaswami Aiyar. After his death, his widow Anantammal became entitled to the properties. She had three daughters, Muthammal, Chinnammal and Narayani Ammal, one of whom, Narayani Ammal, the mother of the 2nd defendant, predeceased Anantammal. As a result of a family settlement the two surviving daughters surrendered their life-estate to defendants 1 and 2 and to Ramaswami Aiyar, the deceased brother of the 1st defendant. Ramaswami Aiyar and Subramania Aiyar are the children of Chinnammal. In 1891 the two daughters of the propositus Ramaswami Aiyar and the 2nd defendant and Ramaswami Aiyar for himself and as guardian of his brother, the present 1st defendant, executed Ex. C in favour of the plaint temple in respect of the suit property. The temple had been enjoying the property from that date till it was dispossessed in 1921 as a result of a decree obtain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »