Chennai Court March 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.
Nagalinga Chettiar Vs. Guruswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad856; (1930)59MLJ232
1. The applicant before us was the purchaser in Court auction of some immoveable properties sold in execution of a money decree. He purchased in one lot two items of properties. In the sale proclamation it was mentioned that there was already a' partition in the family of the judgment-debtor. In execution of the sale certificate the auction-purchaser was put into possession of both the items of properties included in the lot. Subsequently at the instance of the other defendants in the case, who were exonerated from liability under the decree one of the items was found not to be the property of the judgment-debtor but to be the property of the other defendants. The Court accordingly directed that the auction-purchaser should deliver back to defendants 3 and 4 that item of property which was found to be their property. The auction purchaser filed, under Order 21, Rule 93, Civil Procedure Code, an application in the District Munsif's Court praying that he may be allowed a proportionate re...
Gunepally Thammayya and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Tyadapusapati Khandendu Dho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad963; (1930)59MLJ755
Ramesam, J.1. These second appeals have been referred to me by My Lord the Chief Justice on account of the difference of opinion between my brothers Anantakrishna Aiyar and Curgenven, JJ., who first heard them. They are filed under the Agency Rules applying to the Scheduled Districts.2. The Zamindar of Pachipenta filed suits for rents under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act against his ryots and they were decreed by the Assistant Agent. The ryots filed appeals to the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam. These appeals were filed more than thirty days but within six weeks after the decrees. The time prescribed for appealing against a decree for rent to the District Collector is thirty days under Section 191 of the Madras Estates Land Act, and six weeks under Rule 56 of the Agency Rules. The Collector dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were barred by limitation applying Section 191 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The ryots filed these second appeals against those decre...
Madura Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Xavier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad115
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition by the petitioner who is described as Madura Co. Ltd. Alleppey, against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, in a suit by the respondent-plaintiff P.C. Xavier, timber merchant, for damages for injury caused to certain packages containing shooks handed over to the defendant company at the Muttancherry Station which was the out-agency of the S.I. Ry. Co. The petitioner-company is a company incorporated with its registered office at Calcutta. The objects of the company are : (1) to build, purchase, hire or otherwise acquire and hold steam and other ships, boats, launches and other vessels, (2) to carry on the business of shipping owners, managers of shipping property, freight contractors, carriers by land and sea, etc. (3) to deal in coal; (4) to purchase lands, wharfs, warehouses, etc., (5) to carry on the business of general merchants; (6) to carry on all or any of the above businesses as principals or agents; (7) to make agreements an...
Tallapragada Appa Rao Vs. Kasangi Venkappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad534
Ramesam, J.1. These petitions are filed' against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore on applications filed under Order 21, Rule 100, Schedule 1, Civil P.C. (E. A. Nos. 199 and 201 to 206) in O.S. No. 98 of 1926. E.A. No. 206 and a. portion of E.A. No. 205 were dismissed and the rest of the petitions were allowed.2. The opposite party namely the decree-holder in the main suit files these revision petitions.3. The facts out of which these petitions arise may now be stated. The main suit is a dispute between two persons who are half-brothers. The plaintiff is the younger brother and the defendant is the elder.4. The plaintiff's case was that during the lifetime of the father in 1924 there was a division of the father's property by the father himself according to which two-thirds share was allotted to the plaintiff and one-third to the defendant, and each was enjoying his separate share, the plaintiff's enjoyment being through his father as he was a minor.5. After the father's dea...
In Re: Muthu Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ278
ORDERWallace, J.1. The point raised in this Criminal Revision Petition is of considerable importance, namely, what is the procedure to be observed in extradition proceedings between the British Government in India and the French Settlements in India.2. The District Magistrate of South Arcot has, on a demand from the Governor of the French Settlement of Pondicherry and on information from him that judicial proceedings are pending in Pondicherry against two British subjects, arrested these two men and proposes to hand them over without further enquiry to the French authorities. The two arrested men have put in this petition alleging that the action of the District Magistrate is illegal, inasmuch as lie has under the Extradition Act of 1903 no authority to driver them up in this summary fashion, but must first hold an inquiry and satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case against them, as provided for in Chapter II of that Act. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Governmen...
In Re: Kolapalli Narasimhamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ836
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioners, five in number, were convicted by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Amalapuram under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20 each or one month's rigorous imprisonment in default. Out of the fine, P.W. 1 was awarded Rs. 30 as compensation. They appealed to the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry. The petition of appeal and a copy of the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate were presented to the Joint Magistrate on the 5th August, 1929, when he was on tour, by a pleader on behalf of the petitioners. The Magistrate having heard, as he reports, the pleader in support of the appeal, dismissed it under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code. His judgment is brief. After stating that the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate sets out the evidence fully, it goes on to say that the attack on the complainant took place in daylight in the open and that the defence of alibi was a tissue of falsehood, and winds up with the remark that the appellant's p...
Muthu Reddi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad981; 129Ind.Cas.626
ORDERWallace, J.1. The point raised in this criminal revision petition is of considerable importance, namely, what is the procedure to be observed in extradition proceedings between the British Government in India and the French Settlements in India.2. The District Magistrate of South Arcot has, on a demand from the Governor of the French Settlement of Pondicherry and on information from that judicial proceedings are pending in Pondicherry against two British subjects, arrested these two men and proposes to hand them over without further inquiry to the French Authorities. The arrested men have put n this petition alleging that the action of the District Magistrate is illegal, inasmuch as he has under the Extradition Act of 1903 no authority to deliver them up in this summary fashion, but must first he ld an inquiry and satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case against them, as provided for in Chap. II of that Act. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Government contends...
K.C. Kutty and anr. Vs. Vydiarakath Kunhali Haji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad832; (1930)59MLJ194
Reilly, J.1. The petition before the Subordinate Judge of Calicut relates to the election of the two respondents before him as members of the Calicut Taluk Board for the Payyoli Firka of the Kurumbranad Taluk. The Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction over the Kurumbranad Taluk. The election was attacked by the petitioner before the Subordinate Judge on the ground that votes given for him at the election were wrongly rejected by the President of Taluk Board as invalid and that the President refused to recount the votes when requested to do so. These acts according to the petitioner's allegations took place at Payyoli. Respondent 1 before the Subordinate Judge, whose election was attacked, is the petitioner here, and he urges that the Subordinate Judge of Calicut had no jurisdiction to hear an election petition regarding these acts alleged to have taken place at Payyoli outside his local jurisdiction. Under Rule 1 of the Rules for the Conduct of Inquiries and the Decision of Disputes re...
Kanta Venkanna Vs. Inuganti Venkata Surya Neeladri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad865; 129Ind.Cas.68; (1930)59MLJ430
ORDERKrishnan Pandalal, J.1. This is a petition by the first counter-petitioner in the Lower Court to revise an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Peddapur passed under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code 'prohibiting the respondents from putting up any bunds across the channel in their field and from interfering with the petitioner's removing the obstructions already put up,' namely, 'the four small cross-bunds and that part of the bund higher up which is across the channel and no further.'2. Three objections are raised to this order: (1) that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace on which such an order could be justified; (2) that the Magistrate had not found, as he ought to have done, that the petitioner was entitled to the use of the water flowing down the channel in question; and (3) that the terms of the order passed by the Magistrate are in violation of Section 147 according to which an order in the nature of a mandatory injunction ought not to be passed...
Satti Ramanna Vs. Padala Amireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad67; 129Ind.Cas.826; 129Ind.Cas.826; (1931)61MLJ43
1. This appeal and the revision petition have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 433 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The plaint was for a declaration that the release deed, dated 23rd March, 1924, executed by the plaintiff and some other defendants in favour of defendant No. 1 was not valid in law but fraudulent and void and that it could not bind the plaintiff, for dissolution of partnership, and for other consequential reliefs. The valuation put in the plaint was a sum of Rs. 100 (vide para. 13) and Court-fee stamp of the value of Rs. 11-4-0 was affixed to the plaint. On objection taken by the defendant, the Court under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act, enquired into the question of the proper valuation of the plaint and came to the conclusion that the valuation of Rs. 100 mentioned by the plaintiff was he t the correct valuation. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the valuation should be Rs. 56,919-2-3 in addition to another sum of Rs. 2,318-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »