Chennai Court September 1931 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.
In Re: Kodangi Alias Arunachalam Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ860
Jackson, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment for instituting criminal proceedings before the Madura Police charging certain persons with murder and knowing such charge to be false--the offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.2. It would have been better if the charge had exactly specified how he instituted these proceedings.3. Apparently he is charged on two counts. Firstly, he sent a telegram to the District Superintendent of Police, Madura, to the effect that these persons stabbed Tirumeni Servai; and secondly, that during the investigation under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, he made a statement to the same effect.4. There is no proof that the appellant sent the incriminatory telegram, beyond the Circle Inspector's statement that he confessed to so doing. This statement is within the mischief of Section 25, Indian Evidence Act and should not have been proved. No doubt it is one of the ridiculous anomalies involved in these sections, bu...
Mundakath Mathu Vs. Chalora Illath Sankaran Nambudripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad303; 136Ind.Cas.350
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first question we have to decide is, whether this second appeal has been compromised as alleged by Vishnu Nambudri respondent 1. The suit relates to a Nambudri illom. Its karnavan was one Sankaran Nambudri, respondent 2. Vishnu, above named, is the cousin of that Sankaran. Vishnu filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, namely, O.S. No. 344 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Quilandy. That suit was filed on 5th July 1923. Vishnu, the plaintiff, impeached in that suit a certain alienation made by the karnavan Sankaran in favour of defendants 9 and 10. Defendant 9 is the appellant before us. The alienation took the form of a kanom dated 7th December 1922. The District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the transaction was binding on the tarwad. His judgment was delivered on 17th December 1924. From that, an appeal was taken to the District Judge who set aside the Munsif's judgment on 16th March 1926. This second appeal was pre...
P.V.S. Krishnamurthy Pillai and anr. Vs. P.V.S. Sundaramurthy Pillai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad381
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which these appeals arise are briefly these: One P. Venkatachalam was a well-known condiment and ice manufacturer of Madras. He acquired considerable property and died. One of his sons Subbaraya Pillai predeceased him leaving a son Sundaramurthi. Another son of P. Venkatachalam, namely, Subramania Pillai was appointed executor of his last will and testament. Another son Murugesam Pillai and some others including Sundaramurthi Pillai instituted C. S. No. 238 of 1905, in the High Court (original side), Madras, for partition and administration of the properties of Venkatachalam. Sundaramurthi claimed in that suit a fifth share in the properties of the deceased Venkatachalam. By the decree in that suit Sundaramurthi was declared entitled to a fifth share in all the properties and under that decree he got various properties besides a sum of about two lakhs. During the pendency of that suit a son was born, namely, Krishnamurthi. Sundaramurthi seems to have live...
Ramasamy Padayachy Vs. Thiruvengada Padayachy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad163; 145Ind.Cas.407
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. One Subbaraya Padayachi died in 1872. His son Kuppusami died in 1879. After his death, his mother, Sengamalathammal, inherited the properties, and she executed two documents: Ex. 1, dated 1890 and Ex. 2, dated 1917. In this second appeal we are concerned only with Ex. 1. This was executed in favour of defendant 1's father. Two items of consideration are mentioned in that document which are evidenced by Exs. 1-b and 1-a. The document also recites that a sum of Rs. 212 was borrowed by her from the mortgagee for the expenses of litigation in connexion with O. Section 48 of 1882 filed by her. The present suit out of which this second appeal arises has been filed by the plaintiffs, the reversioners, to sot aside this alienation as not binding on them. The question is whether Ex. 1 is binding on the reversion. The District Munsif found against the plaintiffs on this question, but this finding was set aside by the Subordinate Judge.2. Mr....
Venkatachalam Chetti Vs. Ramaswami Servai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad73; (1932)62MLJ1
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether the legal representative of a deceased decree-holder who died during the pendency of an execution petition filed by him can be substituted in his place and be allowed to1 continue it. The deceased decree-holder obtained a decree against the respondent in S.C. No. 266 of 1914 on the file of the Sub-Court of Sivaganga and filed several execution, petitions to execute it. Before the last petition E.P. No. 330 of 1926 was disposed of, he died. His legal representative, the petitioner before us, then applied to the Court for permission to amend the execution petition filed by his father by adding his name to1 it and to continue the execution proceedings. The present petition is more than twelve years after the decree and would, therefore, be barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it is treated as a fresh execution petition; but if the petitioner is allowed to continue the execution petition already filed b...
N. Chinnappa Mudaly and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ103
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Waller sitting in Insolvency. The Official Assignee put in an application in the Insolvency Court for a declaration that the business of N. Chinnappa Mudaliar & Sons was the joint family business of the insolvent, his father and the respondents to the application and that the deed of partition entered into by them was void as against him and for an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating any of the joint family property. Mr. Justice Waller held that there was a joint family, that with the exception of some property the property was joint family property and that the yarn business carried on was the joint family business. The present appeal is against that order.2. Before Mr. justice Waller, apart from facts, the point of law was raised that the Official Assignee was not entitled to make an application under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act because he had at an earlier ...
Venkatachala Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad21; 136Ind.Cas.33
Waller, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. Fifteen persons were charged before the Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly, with dacoity. The jury acquitted one of them and convicted the rest. The Judge thought that acceptance of their verdict would involve a grave miscarriage of justice and has recommended that it be set aside. A Full Bench of this Court has in Veerappa Goundan v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1186, held that the jury is primarily the tribunal to find the facts and that it is not for the High Court to interfere with the verdict of a jury unless it is unreasonable. Mr. Ethiraj has pressed us most urgently not to put too narrow a construction on this ruling. It is not, of course, for us to criticize it, but I think it advisable to correct two statements made in the course of the judgment of the learned Chief Justice. The first is that the rule laid down in Solomon v. Bitton [1881] 8 Q.B.D. 176is enshrined in an even more definite form in the Indian statute, so fa...
In Re: Paturu Venugopalayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad158; (1932)62MLJ150
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in an original suit pending on the file of the Additional Subordiate Judge of Nellore. Objection was taken by the defendants as regards the sufficiency of the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff, having regard to the prayers contained in the plaint. The plaint was once amended, some of the reliefs originally claimed were deleted. As regards the prayers contained even in the amended plaint, the defendants contended that proper Court-fee had not been paid by the plaintiff. That preliminary question had to be decided by the learned Subordinate Judge, and after hearing parties he came to the conclusion that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was not sufficient, and gave the plaintiff some time to pay the deficient Court-fee. On the allegation that the Court-fee already paid was sufficient, and that the learned Subordinate Judge's order was erroneous in so far as it directed the plaintiff to pay additional C...
Pana Ana Rana Arunachallam Pillai Vs. Govindaswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad109; (1932)62MLJ266
1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for money and raises two points as to interest. The amount sued for consisted partly of the price of cloth sold by the plaintiff, a trader, to the defendant, who is also a trader in cloth and partly of an amount of Rs. 500 advanced to the defendant on a pledge of a kasimalai. The defence as to interest on the price of the cloth was that there was no contract for interest either express or to be implied from the usage of trade and as to interest on the loan on the pledge that the defendant had tendered the amount borrowed (Rs. 500) with interest at Re. 1-2-0 per cent. per mensem on 20th September, 1923, i.e., about 25 days before the suit, that the plaintiff had improperly refused to accept the amount and return the pledged jewel and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to further interest from the date of tender or to costs of suit on that head of the claim.2. As to interest on the price of cloth it has been found by both the Lowe...
The Municipal Council of Vizagapatam by Its Chairman Vs. the Tea Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad160; 136Ind.Cas.201; (1932)62MLJ662
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Waller. The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent association, namely, the Tea Districts (Supply) Association is an association of persons formed for certain purposes, the main purpose being to gather recruits for tea estates for various parts of India and one of the gathering grounds being in or close to the appellant Municipality. The objects of the association are fully set out in the: Memorandum of Association and its Articles. The association is contributed to by its members who pay a subscription on a fixed scale and a capitation fee of Rs. 5 for each recruiter and Rs. 12 for each recruit. Each estate which is represented in the association makes an advance of Rs. 75' to cover the expenses of the recruiters. For the moment, we prefer to call these payments by the members of the association their contributions. The association has a branch in the appellant Municipality and under Section 92 of the Madras District Muni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »