Chennai Court March 1930 Judgments
Bethasami Naicken and anr. Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad69; 129Ind.Cas.625; (1930)59MLJ899
Cornish, J.1. The question which arises in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a sufficient Court-fee on a plaint has been paid. The plaint sets out a claim by the plaintiffs in the alternative characters of members of a joint family or of tenants-in-common for a declaration that the defendant had no right in certain immoveable property, and for a permanent injunction. The plaint contained a further prayer for a partition of a 23rd share in items of immoveable property, in the event of the Court holding the plaintiffs were tenants-in-common with a co-tenant since deceased. The plaintiffs contended thatSection 7, Clause (iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act governed the valuation of the property for the purposes of Court-fee. The District Munsif rejected that contention, and I think he was right. BySection 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act as amended by the Madras Court Fees Act, 1922, it is provided that in suits coming underSub-clause (c) (which refers, to suits to obtain a declarat...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Bansiram Jashamal Through His Authorised Agent and Managing Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad985; 129Ind.Cas.45; (1930)59MLJ928
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura directing amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 76 of 1928 and the payment of additional Court-fee. He passed this order in consequence of his finding on the 3rd issue which was argued as a preliminary issue.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff who was one of several mortgagees in a mortgage document, Ex. A, for Rs. 34,000. The document recites that the consideration of Rs. 34,000 was made up of the sums due on prior separate documents to the; mortgagees, namely, the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 10. There is no doubt that the amount of the mortgage money belonged in separate shares to the mortgagees so far as their interests inter se are concerned. But the question now is what is the correct legal position in a suit against the mortgagor when one of the mortgagees wants to sue. Section 67, Clause (d) of the Transfer of Property Act enacts:Nothing in this section shall be deemed to aut...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Appaswami Aiyangar Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ117
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the 1st plaintiff Yamuna Raja Ammani for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by her in favour of the 1st defendant on the 13th August, 1913, whereby she conveyed the lands mentioned in the plaint to the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 16,250 was obtained from her when she was a minor and that consequently the deed is invalid and confers no rights on defendants 1 to 3 for possession of the properties, for division of the properties, if necessary, and, ,in the alternative, if the Court should hold that the plaintiff is estopped from impeaching the sale-deed, for payment to her of Rs. 16,250, the consideration and interest thereon and for costs and other reliefs.2. The facts leading to this appeal are shortly these: The plaintiff is related to the Royal family of Tanjore and Ramakumara Sahiba who was the Dowager Rani of Tanjore and owned certain immoveable properties made a deed of settlement whereby she ga...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Goundan Vs. Krishnappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad929; 129Ind.Cas.37; (1930)59MLJ319
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order awarding compensation to six accused (at Rs. 10 each) made by the First Class Bench of Magistrates of Dharapuram and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, Two objections are raised (1) that the record of the trial does not contain, as it should, the reasons why the Bench considered the complaint to be false and vexatious, and (2) that this vitiates the order.2. On the first point on which there seems to be no direct decision of this Court, the contention must be upheld that even in records of summary trials under Chap. XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code where the Magistrate or Bench acts under Section 250, the requisites of that section as to recording of reasons must be carried out. This seems to follow from the provisions of Section 262 which lays down that the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and that prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in warrant ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Appasami Ayyangar Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad945; 129Ind.Cas.51
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by plaintiff No. 1 Yamuna Raja Ammani for a declaration that the sale deed executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 on 13th August, 1913, whereby she conveyed the lands mentioned in the plaint to defendant No. 1 for 6. consideration of Rs. 16,250 obtained from her when she was a minor and that consequently the deed is invalid and confers no rights on defendants Nos. 1 to 3, for possession of the properties, for division of the properties if necessary and in the alternative if the Court should he ld that the plaintiff is estopped from impeaching the sale-deed, for payment to her of Rs. 16,250, the consideration and interest thereon, and for costs and other reliefs.2. The facts leading to this appeal are shortly these. The plaintiff is related to the royal family of Tanjore and Ramakumara Sahiba, who was the Dowager Rani of Tanjore and owned certain immoveable properties, made a deed of settlement whereby she gave prope...
Tag this Judgment!Ekambara Mudali Vs. Alamelammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1001; 129Ind.Cas.628; (1930)59MLJ708
1. The petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15, in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment, under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, in the following circumstances:The case was filed before the First Class Bench, Vellore, on 19th February, 1929, and posted to 26th February. On 26th February, according to the Diary Extract, it was adjourned to 1st March. On 1st March the complainant was absent, and the accused, the present petitioner, was acquitted under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. On the 5th March the complainant's vakil represented that the posting to the 1st was a mistake for the 5th. Thereupon an entry was made in the diary for the 5th March : Alamelu Ammal prefers a complaint against Ekambara Mudali Her sworn statement is recorded. The case is taken on file under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and posted to 19th March, 1929 2. This was merely a revival of the old complaint dismissed on 1st March, 1929. There was, as a matter of fact, no fresh stamped complaint and...
Tag this Judgment!Vatrapu Subbarao Alias Pamireddi Subbareddi and ors. Vs. Pamireddi Mah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad883; (1930)59MLJ558
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff died after the suit was filed. The 1st defendant is the wife of Sambayya, the deceased brother of the 1st plaintiff, and the 2nd defendant is the son-in-law of Sambayya having married Suramma, his fourth daughter. The 1st plaintiff and Sambayya were formerly members of an undivided Hindu family in possession of large properties. It is alleged in the plaint that Sambayya managed the family property and that he died an undivided member of the family on the 24th November, 1925. He was at the time of his death the Village Munsif of Dokiparru. One of the questions to be decided in this appeal is whether the 1st plaintiff and Sambayya became divided or not. Neither the 1st plaintiff nor Sambayya had any male issue. They had only daughters. It is alleged in the plaint that after the death of Sambayya the entire property of the joint family devolved upon the 1st plaintiff by right of survivorship. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Union Board, Ayyampet Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad971; 129Ind.Cas.81
ORDERPandalal, J.1. This is a revision petition against an acquittal and the petitioner is the President of the Union Board, Ayyampet. The charge was against the occupier of premises within the jurisdiction of the Union Board that he failed to remove an encroachment of which notice was given to him under Section 159, Madras Local Boards Act. There appears to be no doubt that the alleged encroachment was an encroachment. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10. But in appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram set aside that conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that he had been tried for the same offence upon the same facts in a previous trial, namely, in C.C. No. 174 of 1927. What happened in C.C. No. 174 of 1927 was that the District Board of Tanjore brought a case against this accused for failing to remove the same encroachment after notice to remove it was given by the District Board. In answe...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Venkataramana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Kuppuswami Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad954; (1930)59MLJ907
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Salem setting aside the election of the petitioner before me for the first ward of the Union of Tri-chengode in the Salem District. The facts of the case are as follows:-The Madras Government dissolved the Trichengode Union under Section 45 of the Local Boards Act and passed an order that another Board should be re-constituted. They appointed an officer immediately to exercise the powers of the Board and he was., directed to reconstitute a Union Board by arranging for elections in respect of such members as have got to be elected and they directed also the Taluk Board of Sankari to nominate the members that have got to be nominated after the elections are over. All this is to be done as soon as possible. Accordingly the Special Officer appointed proceeded with making arrangements for the election of members for the first ward among other elections. In this election the petitioners before me were electe...
Tag this Judgment!Kappinaiah and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad233a
1. The two appellants have been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to 12 stripes each for committing rape. Basuvi, the woman whom they are said to have raped on 26th August 1929, was found drowned on 30th August 1929 in a neighbouring canal.2. Therefore she has not given evidence and a preliminary question of law arises whether her statement to her mother-in-law P. W. 2, made shortly after the alleged departure of the two accused from her bedroom on 26th August 1929 is admissible in evidence. The learned Judge holds that it is admissiblenot only under Section 32 (1), Evidence Act, as relating to the cause of her death; but also under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act,an observation which argues little attention either to fact or law.3. The woman is said to have been raped on Monday and was alive on Thursday morning and so Section 32 can have no applicability. That section refers to the actual cause of death, or to the transaction resulting in death. If a woman is raped, and de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »