Chennai Court November 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.
Muhammad Ahmad Vs. Bezwada Venkanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad276
ORDERJackson, J 1. Petitioner seeks to revise the orders of the Sub-Magistrate of Rajahmundry in C. C. 1018 and 1019 of 1929, discharging certain accused against whom complaints had been lodged under Sections 482, and 486, I. P.C. Some prosecution witnesses admitted that the accused had been using the alleged false trade-mark for four or five years. Thereupon the Sub-Magistrate ordered discharge finding that under 3. 15, Act 4 of 1889, the prosecution was barred.2. Section 486, I. P.C., runs:Whoever sells anything with a counterfeit trade-mark affixed shall unless he proves such and such...be punished.3. Section 15, Act 4 of 1889, runs:No prosecution (for an offence against any of the sections of the Penal Code which relate to trade) shall be commenced after the expiration of three years next after the commission of the offence, or one year after the discovery there of.... 4. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is to the affect that accused supplied certain buyers with counterfeited Otto Dilk...
Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad361
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the deceased father of the appellant in respect of the proposed acquisition of a plot of land belonging to him by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. The plaintiff was served with notice as required by the Act and a notification to the effect that the land is needed for a public purpose was also published in the Official Gazette. Alleging that the proposed acquisition is illegal, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and for an injunction restraining defendant 1 (the Government) from acquiring the suit land. Both the lower Courts have held that the proposed acquisition is for a public purpose and it is legal and valid. The contentions put forward by the plaintiff in the lower Courts are also pressed in this second appeal.2. On the report of the Deputy Collector on special duty, who was ordered to examine the subject of providing the Panchamas of the Tanjore District wi...
Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.647
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the deceased father of the appellant in respect of the proposed acquisition of a plot of land be-longing to him by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. The plaintiff was served with notice as required by the Act and a notification to the effect that the land is needed for a public purpose was also published in the Official Gazette. Alleging that the proposed acquisition is illegal, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 (the Government) from acquiring the suit land. Both the lower Courts have held that the proposed acquisition is for a public purpose and it is legal and valid. The contentions put forward by the plaintiff in the lower Courts are also pressed in this second appeal.2. On the report of the Deputy Collector on special duty, who was ordered to examine the subject of providing the Pan-chamas of the Tanjore Distr...
Chukkala Mangayyamma Vs. Chukkala Appalaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ213
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Vizagapatam in an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, by a wife for enforcement of the order of the maintenance which she had received from that Court. The; learned Magistrate has refused to pass any such order for reasons which it is not easy to follow. He says that the original order is based on a compromise, that therefore Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, has no longer any application and that the proper remedy for the petitioner is by way of Civil Courts, Of course if the parties had settled the dispute by themselves without any reference to the Court, there would have been no order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, at all; but such settlement is evidently not what they contemplated. The husband was prepared to consent to judgment without giving the petitioner any further trouble so long as her claim for maintenance was reasonable and therefore the Magi...
Sankappa Rai and ors. Vs. Keraga Pujari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad575; (1931)61MLJ120
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to the property of a family of Billavars of the South Kanara District who follow the Aliyasantana Law. It was originally filed by plaintiffs 1 to 12 alleging themselves to be members of the family against 42 other members of the family (defendants 2 to 43) and a mortgagee (1st defendant) for a declaration that two mortgage bonds executed by various members of the family were not valid and binding upon the family property. The defendants denied that these plaintiffs were in fact members of their family and an issue upon this point was raised. During the trial of the suit supplemental plaintiffs Nos. 13 to 19 were added, possibly to prevent an adverse finding upon this issue from involving the suit's dismissal, there being no question that these supplemental plaintiffs belong to the defendants' family. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that plaintiffs 1 to 12 are in fact members of the family and further that the suit mortgage bon...
Pethu Reddiar Vs. Chidambara Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad533
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Turaiyir allowing plaintiff to amend the plaint in O.S. 627 of 1929.2. Plaintiff sued as endorsee of a promissory note the note was alleged by defendant to be void as infringing the Paper Currency Act. Plaintiff then obtained an assignment of the original obligation, and applied to add that cause of action to his plaint. This was allowed, and hence the petition.3. It is conceded by petitioner that if plaintiff were payee there would be no objection to his suing on the original obligation : of. Mian Baksh v. Bodhiya : AIR1928All371 . But it is contended that the endorsee has not the same privilege. On the other hand it is maintained that the endorsee is an assignee of the actionable claim, who can sue on the debt evidenced by the note. There is no absolutely direct authority; but in the light of Muhammad Khumarali v. Ranga Rao [1901] 24 Mad. 654 and Nataraja Naicken v. Ayyasami Pillai [1917] 38 I.C. 339 this pl...
Manavikrama Raja, the ZamorIn of Calicut Vs. Thattamangalath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad328
1. These appeals are by the Zamorin of Calicut from decrees in two suits, O.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1929, in the District Court of South Malabar, in both of which he was defendant 2. Both suits were brought under Section 63 (4), Hindu Religious Endowments Act, to amend a scheme of administration settled by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board (defendant 1 in both suits) under Section 63 (1) of the Act in respect of the Guruvayur Davaswom of which the appellant is a trustee (uralan). The plaintiff in O.S. 1 was the Malliseri Namburi, respondent 1 in A.S. 211. His claim was that ha also was an uralan of the Devaswom. His complaint was that the Board had in their scheme ignored his rights and he prayed that the scheme be amended in that respect. The plaintiffs in O.S. 2 were certain worshippers on whose petition the Board had started the enquiry, which led to the scheme. Their complaint was that the Board had accepted in toto the scheme put forward by the Zamorin and had not adopted sufficient ...
Gangama Naik Vs. N.L.V.R. Veerappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad513
Madhavan Nair, J.1. (S.A. No. 1657 of 1927.) Defendant 1 is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit to establish his title instituted by a defeated claimant in execution proceedings.2. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against one Ramakrishna Naicken in O.S. No. 34 of 1915 on the file of the Periakulam Munsif's Court in respect of a promissory note dated 15th October 1912 for Rs. 600. In execution of the decree the plaint properties were attached on 16th August 1915 and sold in Court auction and were purchased by the plaintiff on 31st August 1917. When ha tried to take possession of the properties, he was obstructed by the defendants and hence the present suit wag filed by him to establish his title.3. The judgment-debtor, Ramakrishna Naicken, had various dealings with different persons. He had executed a mortgage on 18th August 1909 for Rs. 5,000 in favour of defendant 1's wife Subbammal. In 1914 various decrees were obtained against him and he was put in jail. ...
(Moparthi) Nayudamma and ors. Vs. (Sreemanthuraja Yarlagada) Ankineedu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad640
Ramesam, J.1. The only point raised in this second appeal relates to the amount of pleader's fee awarded by the lower appellate Court to the successful plaintiff. The suit was for a declaration in respect of the right of fishery and injunction. The plaintiff succeeded in both Courts. In appeal Rs. 50 was given as pleader's fee. The learned advocate for the appellant argues that the pleader's fee ought to be only Rs. 25 under Rule 31, Legal Practitioner's Fee Rules issued in 1925. Under Rule 31 (b) (1) the minimum fee is Rs. 25 for all cases not falling under Clauses 1, 2, 3, Section 7, Court-fees Act, or under Clause 4, Sub-clause (f) of that section. But Mr. Raghava Rao relies on Rule 37 (b) which relates to declaratory suits. This is a suit for declaration followed by injunction. If the subject-matter is capable of valuation, we are thrown back on Rule 31. But the subject-matter here is a fishery and it is not capable of valuation according to the rules in the Court-fees Act, Section...
M.R. Ry. Manavikrama Raja Avergal, the ZamorIn of Calicut Vs. Thattama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.19
1. These appeals are by the Zamorin of Calicut from decrees in two suits O.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1929 in the District Court of South Malabar in both of which he was the 2nd defendant. Both suits were brought under Section 63 (4) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act to amend a scheme of administration settled by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board (the 1st defendant in both suits) under Section 63(1) of the Act in respect of the Guruvayur Devaswom of which the appellant is a trustee (Uralan). The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 was the Malliseri Namburi the 1st respondent in A.S. No. 211. His claim was that he also was an Uralan of the Devaswom. His complaint was that the Board had in their scheme ignored his rights and he prayed that the scheme be amended in that respect. The plaintiffs in O.S. No 2 were certain worshippers on whose petition the Board had started the enquiry, which led to the scheme. Their complaint was that the Board had accepted in toto the scheme put forward by the Zamorin an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »