Chennai Court December 1930 Judgments
Gopal Naick and ors. Vs. Alagirisami Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad770; (1931)60MLJ520
ORDERJackson, J.1. The first point is that the Public Prosecutor having withdrawn from the case, the accused must be acquitted. It does not appear that there was, formal withdrawal from the prosecution-under Section 494. The Prosecution Inspector simply dropped out and let a vakil carry on the prosecution in what was practically a private complaint.2. The second point is whether the Police on receiving information in a complaint forwarded under Section 202 can investigate under Section 156. The Police need no more than report; but if they choose to investigate, it is not illegal. '3. If Emperor v. Haji Nur Mahomed I.L.R. (1928) B. 339 is to the contrary, I respectfully disagree. In In re Arula Kotiah (1911) 10 M.L.T. 120 : 12 Cri. L.J. 463 it was held that a Magistrate having taken cognizance of a complaint is bound, if he decides to delay process under Section 202, to call for a report and cannot act under Section 156 (3) ; but this ruling does not affect the powers of the Police. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Ayyar Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad278
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. His father one Subbier filed a suit against him for partition of joint family property on 18th August 1922. The summons in the suit was served on the defendant by affixing it on the door on 16th September 1922. On 15th September 1922 (i. e., one day before the service of the summons) Subbier settled some portions of his half share of the property on two of his daughters and simultaneously executed a 'will' with respect to the other properties. He died on 1st April 1924 but even by that time the suit had not been tried. The persons entitled under 'the settlement' and the 'will' were after contest brought on as his legal representatives as plaintiffs 2 to 6 and defendant 10 and they got a. decree for a half share of the property. The first Court's decree was confirmed on appeal by the appellate Court.2. In second appeal it is argued that on the date of the 'will' and 'settlement' (that is, 15th September 1922) the father had no power to e...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Audinatha Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad642
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decree of this Court in A.S. No. 176 of 1 927 dated 2nd August 1929. The amount of the subject matter involved in the suit is now by the accumulation of interest more than Rs. 10,000, but was below that sum at the time of the institution of the suit.. Leave is therefore claimed under Section 109 (c), Civil P.C., on the ground that the case is a ' fit one ' for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.2. The facts of the case appear fully from the judgments of this Court. However a brief statement of them may be made here for the purposes of this petition. The first counter-petitioner was the holder of a third mortgage over some properties belonging to defendant 1. The heirs of the first mortgagee-over the properties instituted a suit on his mortgage making defendant 1, the second mortgagee and the present plaintiff, the third mortgagee, parties to it and obtained a decree for sale. The decree-ho...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.C.T. Ramanathan Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. P.L.C. Lakshmanan Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad644; (1931)61MLJ224
1. The original suit from which this appeal arises was a suit in ejectment, the plaintiff alleging title under a sale deed, Exhibit B, dated 22nd November, 1898, from the two sons of one Sethuraman Servai, Kaliappan and Audiappan and alleging also possession up to 10th February, 1919, and a dispossession by the defendants on that day. The suit was brought on 18th February, 1920, for possession from the defendants and consequential reliefs. The Lower Court dismissed the suit on its finding that the plaintiff had not proved possession within 12 years of suit. The plaintiff appeals.2. The suit site is punja No. 120 in Eravancheri village, Guttakainattu Taluk, Devakotta. It has of late years owing to its potential value as house-site become the subject of a scramble for possession which has led to claims well and ill-founded based on documents or otherwise being put forward by various people and to litigation thereon. In the course of hearing before us the remarkable fact was disclosed tha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nandipati Ramireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ694
Jackson, J.1. It seems that an entirely wrong system of procedure is developing in the Lower Courts. Accused persons before they are charged and put upon their defence anticipate their defence by petitions on which the trial Court writes written orders, and these are then brought up on revision. The procedure is quite misconceived. An accused person must wait till he is charged before he defends himself, and if he is convicted his first remedy is in most cases by way of appeal. At this stage there is no room for revision.2. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Reddi and ors. Vs. Srinivasachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad452; (1931)61MLJ135
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by four plaintiffs in a representative capacity for a declaration that Survey No. 6516 in the village of Singanur of extent about 77 or 78 cents is kakmi poramboke and for an injunction restraining the defendants from having a Droupadi Amman temple in any portion of that land. The original extent of the land was about 83 cents, but in the north-east corner of it there is an old Perumal temple. Both the Courts below found that the suit land is halam poramboke. I will first deal with the preliminary objection that has been taken by the learned advocate for the respondents. He contends that the appeal cannot proceed because it was originally filed by defendants 1 to 5 who were permitted by the District Munsif to defend the suit on behalf of those villagers who were of the same opinion as themselves, but the second appellant died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record and the remaining four appellants ar...
Tag this Judgment!(inuganti) Venkata Madhava Rao Vs. Garapati Narayanamurty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad511
1. One Sobhanadri Rao obtained a mortgage decree for sale against Ramayya (respondent 3 here), brought the mortgaged property to sale and became auction-purchaser. After the auction but before confirmation of the sale respondents 1 and 2 here brought a suit for money, O.S. 89 of 1928, against Ramayya in the District Munsif's Court and obtained an attachment before judgment of the same property in this suit on 5th February 1928. On 6th February 1928 Ramayya sold the property to Madhava Rao (appellant here) and on 13th February 1928, having' paid into Court what v as necessary under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C, got the auction sale to Sobhanadri Rao cancelled. Madhava Rao then applied to the District Munsif for the raising of the attachment obtained by respondents 1 and 2, who by that time had got a decree in their suit but bad not applied for execution. The District Munsif held that their attachment was invalid and formally raised it. They then appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who r...
Tag this Judgment!(Gorti) Brahmayya Vs. Perumalla Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad552
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 6 is the appellant. Defendant 1 was the owner of two items of property. Item 1 was mortgaged to one Moseh. Afterwards defendant 1 and his sons mortgaged the same item and item 2 to the plaintiff under Ex. A dated 3rd March 1915. Defendant 1 then became an insolvent and the Official Receiver brought these two items to sale. Defendant 6 purchased item 1 subject to the prior mortgage of Moseh and the plaintiff purchased item 2. The Official Receiver has executed a sale-deed to defendant 6 but no sale-deed has been executed to the plaintiff.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the sum of money due upon the mortgage executed by defendant 1 in his favour. The contesting defendant is defendant 6. His main contention, was that by the purchase of item 2 by the plaintiff his mortgage became extinguished both in law and in fact and that item 1 is not liable for plaintiff's mortgage. His plea was accepted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Gorti Brahmayya Vs. Perumalla Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.152
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 6th defendant is the appellant. The 1st defendant was the owner of two items of property. The first item was mortgaged to one Moseh Afterwards the 1st defendant and his sons mortgaged the same item and the second item to the plaintiff under Ex. A dated 3rd March 1915. The 1st defendant then became an insolvent and the Official Receiver brought these two items to sale. The 6th defendant purchased the first item subject to the prior mortgage of Moseh and the plaintiff purchased the second item. The Official Receiver has executed a sale-deed to the 6th defendant but no sale-deed has been executed to the plaintiff.2. The suit out oi which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the sum of money due upon the mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in his favour. The contesting defendant is the 6th defendant. His main contention was that by the purchase of item No. 2 by the plaintiff his mortgage became extinguished both in law and in fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Chena Veena Chidambaram Chettiar (Died) and Four ors. Vs. Chokkalingam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ52
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal, which comes on for hearing in 1930 on account of the deaths of various parties, arises out of a suit filed in 1915, the plaint itself being filed on 19th August, 1914. The plaintiff got a decree in November, 1915. There was an appeal and the District Judge dismissed the appeal in 1917. There was a second appeal to the High Court, No. 1801 of 1917. The High Court reversed the decree and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law. The Special Deputy Collector passed his fresh decree in December, 1919 and the District Judge's decree was in February, 1924. The suit was filed by a Nattukottai Chettiar to recover rent in respect of the suit land. He claims the rent at the normal rate which lands of similar quality would be liable to pay. But the defendant resists this claim on account of certain prior transactions and he says he is liable to pay rent only at the rate of Rs. 6 per chei. For the purpose of understanding the defendant's plea we have ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »