Chennai Court September 1930 Judgments
Nanureddigari Lakshmireddy Vs. Ugranapalli Muni Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ524
ORDERJackson, J.1. On examining the record of C.C. No. 504 of 1929, the Sessions Judge of Chittoor, acting under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, directed further inquiry and returned the case to the Original Court, that of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathi. Meanwhile there had been a change of Magistrates and the new Magistrate after posting the case for inquiry, framed a charge without re-examining the witnesses already examined. Thereupon the accused petitioned the District Magistrate of Chittoor, who transferred the case, holding that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Magistrate was illegal, and diametrically opposed to the authoritative rulings. The learned Magistrate has not cited these rulings, but reserved them for a separate instruction to the Sub-Magistrate, a course that cannot be commended, because it leaves the parties and the revisional Court entirely in the dark. However, the learned Public Prosecutor says that the rulings relied upon are Queen-Empress v. Ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Matter of the Estate of C. Govindaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1930
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ899
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A novel question has been raised for which no precedent exists in this Court. This is a petition for probate. The petitioner says, he is a pauper and that is not disputed. The question raised, is, whether an order can be made granting him probate before payment by him of the succession duty. Section 19-1 of the Court-Fees Act reads thus:No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the third schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the first schedule has been paid on such valuation.2. This, in short, enacts that no order granting probate shall be made until the Court is satisfied that the proper fee has been paid. It is in terms mandatory. But does this mean that the rules relating to paupers are inapplicable to petitions for probate or letters of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kanaga Kosavan Alias Kanakachala Kosavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ616
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. It is not impossible that under these circumstances feeling desperate and depressed she asked the appellant to kill her and there is no real motive proved by the prosecution for the appellant deliberately killing her of his own free will I think that in this state of affairs he must be given the benefit of the doubt and that the whole of his confession must be accepted and that I must find that he killed the deceased at her request. What, then, is the legal position? It is argued on his behalf that on these facts the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception (5) to Section 300, Indian Penal Code. It reads as follows:Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the 'risk' of death with his own consent. 2. From the evidence it is obvious that the deceased was more than 18 years of age and she was therefore able to consent to her killing. Several authori...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaga Kosvan Alias Konakachala Kosavan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.147
Beasley, G.J.1. The appellant was convicted in the Sessions Court of Coimbatore of the offence of murder and sentenced to death. The charge against him was that on the 13th November, 1929, he murdered a woman named Unnamalai on a road between two villages not far from the village of Aranapalayam. The murder is alleged to have taken place between cock-crowing time and just after dawn because at the latter time P.W. No. 7 was informed that a woman was lying dead on the road to the north of the village and he went and saw the body which lay about two furlongs from his house. He identified the body as being that of a woman who had taken her meals and slept in his house the provioua night and had left the house a little before cockcrow together with the appellant. The woman and the appellant had come to the house the evening before and they asked for food and it was given to them and then the woman and the appellant slept on the pial that night. If the evidence of this witness is to be beli...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thoomulur Anantapadmanabiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.70; (1930)59MLJ914
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether a person against whom a Magistrate has drawn up an order under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, asking him to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace under Section 107 is entitled to obtain a copy of the written information given by the Police on which the order is based. The ' Magistrate refused to grant the copy holding that it is not a charge-sheet, as the petitioner described it in his application. That it is not a report under Section l73, Criminal Procedure Code, copy of which should under Clause 4 of that section be furnished on application and payment to the accused, is clear enough, Because the section is in terms confined to reports made on investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. But this does not dispose of the matter. Section 548(leaving out the immaterial words) provides that 'if any person affected by an order passed by a Criminal Court desires to have a copy of ... 'ot...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, a Corporation Constituted Under the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad497; (1931)61MLJ748
Curgenven, J.1. The appellant is the Municipal Council of Kumbakonam represented by its Chairman, and the appeal is against a decree granted by our learned brother Waller, J., to the respondents, Messrs. Ralli Brothers. This firm is engaged in the export of groundnut and possesses godowns within the Kumbakonam Municipality where after purchase and before shipment groundnut is stored. The plaint recites that for a period of 22 years godowns within the Municipality have been used for this purpose without any interference, but that in or about July, 1926, a demand was made for a sum of Rs. 100 as licence fee in respect of the premises for the year 1926-27. The plaintiffs paid the fee under protest and similarly paid the fee for the ensuing year, 1927-28, upon a demand made on the 12th April, 1927. The suit was brought for a declaration that the plaintiff firm was not liable to pay such a charge because it was unreasonable and excessive and fixed in an arbitrary manner, and for a refund of...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Mudali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad225
ORDERPandalai, J.1. The petitioners who are six in number were convicted and sentenced as follows : Petitioners 1 to 4 (accused 1 to 4) under Section 430, petitioners 5 and 6 (accused 7 and 8) under Section 430 read with Section 34; petitioners 2 and 3 (accused 2 and 3) also under Section 352. Petitioners 2 and 3 (accused 2 and 3) were fined Rs. 60 and all the others Rs. 50 each.2. The conviction arose out of the act of the ryots of Theniluppai village, to which the petitioners belong, opening the sluice of the feeder channel from the Cheyyar anicut and also in removing a mud dam which had been temporarily put up across a vellavari also taking off water from the same anicut, but from the opposite bank. The object of the villagers was to take water to their own village tank fed by this sluice and by the vellavari, and these acts were done against the orders of the Public Works Department which has the duty of regulating the distribution of water of this irrigation system, in exercise of...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami thevan Vs. Ganapathi Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Mad173
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Defendant 5 is the appellant and his appeal arises out of a suit brought by the deceased plaintiff, whose legal representative is the present respondent 1 for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due on a registered usufructuary mortgage bond dated 30th December 1912 and executed to the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 3 and by defendant 1 as the guardian of defendant 4 for Rs, 700. The mortgagee was to enjoy the mortgaged property in lieu of interest for a period of five years. Defendant 5 is a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property. The main point in dispute in the suit is one relating to the discharge of the suit mortgage debt. The original suit mortgage deed was not produced by the plaintiff but it has come to Court from the custody of defendant 5. The plaintiff has set forth his version as to how defendant 5 came by this document, where as defendant 5 has pleaded that this document was got back after discharging the mortgage debt. The mortgage bon...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajarajeswara Sethupathi and anr. Vs. T.K. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad206
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected appeals. The question for decision in S.A. 1252 and 1253 of 1918, is whether the tenants are liable to pay an extra charge for vanpayir or garden crop raised on dry lands by means of wells dug at their expense. It is argued for the appellants that upon the evidence these wells should be deemed to have been dug about ten years before the filing of these suits. Though the trial- Court was of that opinion the finding of the lower appellate Court is otherwise. It has discussed the evidence both oral and documentary in paras. 4 and 5 of its judgment and found that the wells must have been dug long ago and that the vanpayir rate was being levied for over a century. The zamindar's claim for vanpayir is not therefore affected by Section 13, Clause 3, Estates Land Act. The finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court has to be accepted in these second appeals.2. S.A. Nos. 1252 and 1253 of 1918, are dismissed with costs (one fee for both.)3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarnaraina Saralaya Vs. Laxmi Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad277; (1931)60MLJ267
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara refusing to set aside the order of abatement in A.S. No. 151 of 1926 on his file. It appears that two independent appeals were filed against the decree of the first Court passed in the suit, one appeal being by the plaintiff and the other appeal by the 2nd defendant In the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant, the legal representatives of the respondent, namely, the plaintiff, not having been added within the time prescribed by law, there was an abatement and, when that abatement was sought to be set aside, the Lower Court found that there was no ground for allowing the petition on the merits and dismissed it.2. The point now taken in this appeal is a pure question of law. It is argued that, because the legal representatives of the appellant in the other appeal (who is no doubt the plaintiff in the suit) have been added within the time allowed, it should be taken that those legal r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »