Chennai Court January 1932 Judgments
Karuppayee Ammal by Agent S.N. Sankaralinga Swami Naicker Vs. Kattari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad440; 137Ind.Cas.645; (1932)62MLJ698
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Visvanathaswami Naicker, an illegitimate son of the late Zamindar of Bodinaicka-noor by the 4th defendant, filed O.S. No. 31 of 1902 on the file of the Sub-Court of Madura West for a declaration that he is entitled to inherit the Zamin of Bodinaickanoor and for possession of the Zamindari with all its appurtenances and for other reliefs; though his suit was dismissed by the Sub-Court, Madura West, on appeal that decision was reversed and the suit remanded for fresh disposal. On 25th April, 1913, the Sub-Court, Madura (which was the name given to the old Sub-Court, Madura West) passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for partition of the separate properties of the late Zamindar and delivery of a one-third share thereof to him. On appeal, the High Court modified that decree and upheld the plaintiff's right to a half share in the said separate properties. The High Court also held that the plaintiff was not bound by the release deed--Ex. II--executed to the 1st defe...
Tag this Judgment!Kumarasami Mudaliar Vs. Narayansami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad762
1. The plaintiff as the reversioner of one Anaiappa sues to recover certain lands in the possession of the various defendants. Anaiappa, the last male holder, died in 1867 and his widow. Alagathai, sold the lands in question' in 1873 to one Rangasami. Defendants 1 to 11 are his heirs, and the other defendants, about sixty in number, are in possession of various plots claiming under alienations made by some descendant or other of Rangasami. Alagathai died in 1922 and the present suit was instituted in 1924. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit holding inter alia that the alienation was made by the widow under circumstances which render it lawful and valid.2. Several questions have been argued but for the dioposal of this appeal, it is sufficient to deal with two of the defences raised. The first point is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in showing that the property in questions was on the date of the alienation (Ex. 7) a part of Anaiappa's estate. Anaiappa inherited s...
Tag this Judgment!(Nekkanti) Seeramma Vs. (Nekkanti) Seshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad217; 145Ind.Cas.766
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner here was defendant in a suit for maintenance brought by the respondent. The suit was decreed, and the maintenance was made a charge on a particular item of property. The date of the decree was 22nd August 1927. The plaintiff afterwards discovered that this item of property had been misdescribed by her in the schedule to her plaint, and applied on 16th November 1927 to have the mistake rectified in an application under Section 152, Civil P.C. This application was dismissed, the Court suggesting that the proper remedy might be an application for review. The plaintiff then, after a considerable delay, which has been excused by the learned District Munsif on the ground that the time taken up by the plaintiff in obtaining the advice of lawyers and in procuring the necessary funds, filed an application for review under C. 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. This was on 9th March 1928. The ground on which the review was sought was that the discovery of the right survey number ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.S. Radhakrishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ380
ORDERWaller, J.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and his conviction was confirmed on appeal. The defamation was embodied in a document which was published by him during an election to a Taluk Board, at which election one Ramanatha Aiyar (the respondent) was a candidate. In revision it is contended on his behalf that he should have been prosecuted for an offence under Section 171-G, Indian Penal Code, which could not be clone without the sanction of the Local Government. Several decisions have been cited before us on this point but we propose to deal with the petition on another ground. Section 171-G, Indian Penal Code, has been framed on the lines of Section 1 of an analogous English Act, the Act to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which was passed in 1895. Section 1 of that Act defines as an illegal practice the making or publishing of any false statement of fact in re...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Mudali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad501
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. As the matter now stands, after all the elaborate process in connexion with this case of rioting in both the lower Courts has been gone through, the question had reduced itself to a simple one. The petitioners who are five of the accused are the only relics of those convicted by the first Court, and the question is, whether in the face of the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal, even the conviction Under Section 147, I. P. C., in respect of the petitioners is legally sustainable. In order to punish them for rioting, it is not enough to show that they were members of an unlawful assembly, but it should also be made out that force or violence was used by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly. The specific acts of violence attributed to them have been disbelieved by the learned Judge, and the rest of the accused have all been acquitted. In the absence of proof of one of the elements necessary to constitute riot...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Radhakrishna Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad511
Waller, J.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted of the offence of criminal defamation Under Section 500, I. P. C., and his conviction was confirmed on appeal. The datamation was embodied in a document which was published by him during an election to a Taluk Board, at which election one Ramanatha Ayyar (the respondent) was a candidate. In revision it is contended on his behalf that he should have been prosecuted for art offence Under Section 171-G, I. P. C., which could not be done without the sanction of the Local Government. Several decisions have been cited before us on this point, but we propose to deal with the petition on another ground. Section 171-G, I. P. C., has been framed on the lines of Section 1 of an analogous English Act, the Act to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which was passed in 1895. Section 1 of that Act defines as an illegal practice the making or publishing of any false statement of fact in relation to the personal characte...
Tag this Judgment!Gadagamma Venkatapathi Vs. Baliarsimhuni Sanyasiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad368
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam with a recommendation that the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Parvatipur, Under Section 145, Criminal P. C, dated 30th June 1931 may be quashed as illegal and passed without jurisdiction. The facts of the case which led up to this refer once have been clearly set forth in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In view of those facts, I need hardly state that the whole procedure adopted by the Subdivisional Magistrate is vitiated by the irregularities pointed out by the Sessions Judge. Section 145, Clause 1, makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to state in writing the grounds for his being satisfied that on account of the dispute in respect of lands there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace. On passing such an order in writing he should require the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actua...
Tag this Judgment!Appa and ors. Vs. Kachai Bayyan Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad689; 137Ind.Cas.458
1. The only question that arises for decision in this second appeal is whether Ex. 16 effected a partition between the thavazhi of the plaintiffs on the one hand and that of defendants 1 to 10 on the other. The claim petition filed by the plaintiffs when the suit properties were attached in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 85 of 1918 against the karnavan of the thavazhi of defendants 1 to 10 was dismissed by the District Munsif on the ground that the plaintiffs' thavazhi had become divided from that of defendants 1 to 10 by virtue of Ex. 16, and that the plaintiff had therefore no interest in the properties that were attached. In the suit which the plaintiffs filed under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., which was heard by another District Munsif he held that Ex. 16 evidenced only a maintenance arrangement and did not amount to a partition. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry came to a different conclusion holding that Ex. 16 worked out a partition between the thavazhis of t...
Tag this Judgment!Baliarsimhuni Sanyasi Raju and ors. Vs. Gadagamma Venkatapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.68
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam with a recommendation that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parvatipur, under b. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, dated 30th June, 1931, may be quashed as illegal and passed without jurisdiction. The facts of the case which led up to this reference have been clearly set forth in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In view of these facts, I need hardly state that the whole procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is vitiated by the irregularities pointed out by the Sessions Judge. Section 145, Clause 1 makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to state in writing the grounds for his being satisfied that on account of the dispute in respect of lands there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace. On passing such an order in writing he should require the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact o...
Tag this Judgment!(Raja Panaganti) Ramarayanimgar Vs. U.R.D.K. Venkata Lingam Nayanim Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad709
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. (Appeal No. 254 of 1929). This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage. The Rajah of Kalahasti is the ex officio trustee of Sri Prasanna Varadaraja Swami Devastanam situated in that village. Thimma Nayanim Bahadur Varu, the late Rajah, executed in favour of himself as trustee of the temple a mortgage bond dated 19th October, 1908 for about Rs. 27,000 odd. He died in 1919 and his son, the present plaintiff, succeeded him both as the Rajah of Kalahasti and as the hereditary trustee of the institution. The plaintiff as such trustee seeks to enforce the mortgage bond as against the defendant into whose hands the properties have passed. One Lakshmikanthamma, a widow of a previous zamindar obtained in O.S. No. 15 of 1897, a maintenance decree against Akkappa the then holder of the estate. She executed that decree and brought the suit village to sale. At the Court sale the defendant in 1911 became the purchaser of the two villages in question. It will ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »