Chennai Court August 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.
Sri Raja Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur Garu Vs. Raja Muganti Venkatarama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad45; 129Ind.Cas.245; (1931)60MLJ701
Bardswell, J.1. The suit under appeal is one for recovery of possession by the plaintiff from defendant 1 of the suit property which consists of one-fourth share in the Mokhasa village of Somavaram in the Kistna District. According to the plaint, the plaintiff's father, professing to act as his guardian during his minority, purported to alienate, on 14th October, 1910, under a registered sale-deed, the suit property to the late father of defendants 1 and 2 for a cash consideration of Rs. 27,302 which was quite inadequate, while the sale itself did not purport to be for any justifiable necessity. The suit property was in the possession of the father of defendants 1 and 2 till his death in or about May, 1911, and has been in the sole possession of defendant 1 since about September, 1918, when there was a partition between him and his brother defendant 2. The plaint further sets out that there was a fraud on the registration law in that there was included in the sale-deed a vacant land be...
Suppiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad980
Pandalai, J.1. It is contended that P.W. 3 had illicit intercourse with the petitioner even before she was kidnapped from P.W. 4's house and that therefore the taking was not in order to seduce her to illicit intercourse. For this the decision in Rex v. Federrich Moon, Rex v. Emily Moon [1910] 1 K.B. 818, is relied on. That was a decision under the English Children Act 1908 under which it was held that seduction was surrender or loss of chastity for the first time. In my opinion that decision has no application to Section 366, I.P.C., where the substantial offence is kidnapping or abduction. The conviction was therefore right.2. As to the sentence the fact that P.W. 3 was not merely a consenting party but perhaps pressed the petitioner to take her away is to be taken into account. The petitioner is young, and on the whole behaved well, except that he broke the law listening to a young woman. The sentence is reduced to one month's simple imprisonment....
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. Vs. D.N. Radhakrishna Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad61; 129Ind.Cas.242; (1930)59MLJ746
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The notice calls upon Mr. Ranganatham Naidu of Messrs. Dowden & Co. to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. He appears and has been examined He says that he is the sole proprietor of Messrs. Dowden & Co. It is immaterial for the present whether this statement is true or not, Messrs. Dowden & Co. used to be frequently appointed by the Court, auctioneers to sell properties. In this case when the sale proclamation was settled the Master appointed them auctioneers to sell certain properties in execution of a mortgage decree. Mr. Ranganatham Naidu admits that the properties were sold by him in May, 1930, and that he in due course received the sale proceeds. It was his obvious duty to have brought the money into Court. He failed to do so and the only excuse he is able to offer is that the Court was then closed. As the Master points out, this did not prevent him from bringing in the money. In any case it could have been brought on the 14th July when t...
Somisetti Seshayya Chetty and ors. Vs. Rolla Subbadu, Minor by Next Fr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad991; (1930)59MLJ881
1. The defendants in this suit are appellants here. This was a suit based upon a hypothecation bond, dated the 31st March, 1897, executed by the father of defendants 1 and 2 and his coparceners. Admittedly Article 132 of the Limitation Act is the appropriate article in such cases and that provides for a twelve years' period of limitation. The suit in this case was filed on the 2nd February, 1921 and the 12 years' period of limitation provided by Article 132 of the Limitation Act expired on the 31st March, 1909, but in order to get over the bar of limitation raised against the plaintiffs by Article 132, an acknowledgment of liability, dated the 6th May, 1909, is relied on by the plaintiffs. It must be noted that this acknow ledgment was after the period of limitation provided by Article 132 had expired, but the plaintiffs' case is that by virtue of sec tion 31 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which came into force to gether with Section 1 on the 7th August, 1908, the period of limitation wa...
M. Raghavalu Naidu Vs. Thandaroya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad71
1. In a case pending before the learned District Munsif of Vellore a question of law arose for decision. On that question of law, it would appear from the letter of reference of the learned District Munsif that the decisions of the High Courts of Allahabad and Rangoon in two cases reported in the A.I.R. series were contrary to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case reported in Subbier v. Moideen Pichai A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 562. The learned District Munsif has made the present reference to the High Court to have the question of law decided for guidance in the case before him. When this reference came on for hearing, our attention was drawn to certain passages occurring in the letter of reference of the learned District Munsif, and as we consider that before proceeding further we should say what we consider to be proper with reference to those passages, we proceed at once to set out in extenso the said passages from the letter of reference. In para. 9, this is what he states:On be...
In Re: Duraiswami Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ691
1. The three appellants were charged with three other persons before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Chingleput Division with the offence of housebreaking by night and dacoity on the night of the 17th October, 1929. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the appellants in respect of both the charges but acquitted the other accused. The appellants were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the convictions, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The points taken here by Mr. Ethiraj in these appeals are that the Trial Judge wrongly directed the jury as to the law, in that he did not tell them correctly what the offences of robbery and dacoity consisted of, and further that he did not direct the jury with regard to the possible acquittal by them of some of the accused which would reduce the number of the persons present to below five, that they would have to consider whether there were other persons-unidentified persons-in order to justify a co...
In Re: Seemakurti Kanakayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.75; (1930)59MLJ854
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The only point argued in this petition is that the petitioner against whom charges under Sections 408 and 477-A have been framed in C.C. No. 82 of 1929 now pending against him cannot be tried or convicted for those offences because the petitioner was in a previous case filed by the same complainant, namely C.C. No. 84 of 1928, tried and convicted for criminal breach of trust in respect of sums collected within the same period as that covered by the alleged offences in this case.2. The facts are as follows. The petitioner was a clerk under the complainant who is a trader in paddy and rice. The duty of the accused was to sell rice collect the price from his customers and pay the amounts collected to the complainant and keep correct accounts of all receipts. In C.C. No. 84 of 1928 the petitioner was charged with having received sums of money on two days, namely Rs. 60 on 10th August, 1928, and two sums of Rs. 16-12-0 and Rs. 54-4-9 on 24th September, 1928 and ...
In Re: Kolli Satyanarayana Choudari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ378
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise an ex parte order tinder Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the District Magistrate of Guntur on the 20th June, 1930, prohibiting the public from wearing Gandhi caps in any place frequented by the public within the limits of the Guntur Municipality and a radius of five miles therefrom for a period of two months and an order passed by the same Magistrate on 10th July refusing to rescind the first order on a petition by the present petitioner dated the 2nd of July, 1930.2. The circumstances in which the ex parte order came to be passed are as follows:--On the 14th of June the District Magistrate passed two orders under Section 144, in view of the Civil Disobedience Movement, one prohibiting processions of more than four persons and public meetings in Guntur and the other directing the volunteers to leave the Sibiram. On the 15th, as the volunteers did not leave the Sibiram, it was raided and captured and the vol...
In Re: Devatha Sriramamurty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.649; (1931)60MLJ370
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This is a petition, to revise an ea- parte order, dated 14th June, 1930, made under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Rajahmundry, which on application dated 16th June by the petitioner that the Magistrate by his order dated 14th July declined to rescind, The order of 14th June is as follows:Order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code: Whereas from information given by the Police it has been made to appear to me that in Rajahmundry the hoisting of tri-coloured flags on the residential and other buildings is giving room to certain rowdies and men of bad character to think that they can safely molest them under a wrong belief that no notice would be taken by those responsible for law and order and that for the preservation of peace and tranquillity the removal of such flags is necessary and emergent, I.P. Mallikharjuna Row, B.A., Second Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, hereby prohibit under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code,...
Alagammal Vs. Sadasiva Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1017; 129Ind.Cas.47; (1931)60MLJ72
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These miscellaneous appeals arise out of two orders of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in two connected appeals on his file. When these appeals came on for hearing the learned advocate for the respondents took the preliminary objection that the appeals did not lie. In order to appreciate the nature of the suits and of the preliminary objection raised before us. it is necessary to state a few facts. One Arumugam was owner of the suit properties. On the 5th March, 1912, he hypothecated these properties in favour of the plaintiff's husband.. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 686 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ariyalur after her husband's death to recover the money due on the mortgage of the 5th March, 1912. To that suit she made Arumugam, the mortgagor, as defendant. After obtaining the usual mortgage decree, she had the properties sold in execution of the decree and herself became the purchaser, and the sale certifica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »