Chennai Court January 1932 Judgments
In Re: Arunachala Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ680
Waller, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his maternal uncle and brother-in-law Thirumalai Reddi. The main evidence against him is his own confession (Ex. A.), corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 and by the fact that the cloths he had been wearing were stained with human blood. The first information of the occurrence was given by the appellant himself. After killing his uncle, he went straight to the nearest Magistrate (P.W. 1) and told him what he had done. The Magistrate told him to pull himself together1 and gave him an hour for reflection. At the end of that time, the appellant was still in the same mood and made a complete confession, which the Magistrate recorded in the manner prescribed by Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, which he need not have done, as the confession was not taken under that section. It is contended now, as it was contended in the Court below, that Ex. A is inadmissible in evidence, because the investigation had not than begun. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Chintapenta Narasimha Rao Vs. Chintapenta Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1932
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.765; (1932)62MLJ436
1. Two questions arise in this second appeal, The first is whether Exs. 4 and 4(a) evidence a partition be tween Sivaramayya and Seshayya, one of his three sons, As to that we see no reason to dissent from the conclusion arrived at by both of the courts below that they do. The circumstances, it seems to us, indicate that it was the intention of both parties to enter into a complete separation of interest. The second question is whether, on the death of a father leaving self-acquired property, his undivided sons succeed to such property to the exclusion of a divided son. That question was answered in the affirmative in Nana Tawker v. Ramaehandra Tawker 2 Ind. Cas. 519 : 38 M. 377 : 5 M.L.T. 67. It has, however, been referred to a Bench for reconsideration on the grounds that some doubt has been thrown on the correctness of that decision in a later Madras case, and that it has been expressly dissented from by the Chief Court of Oudh, The later Madras case is Vairavan Chettiar v Srinivasa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pachaimuthu Alias Chinnapayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1932
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.810; (1932)62MLJ571
ORDER1. We must decline to accept the reference, which seems to be premature. The Assistant Sessions Judge should have disposed of the charges which were triable with the aid of assessors. When he has done so, it will be open to him to consider whether the interests of justice require that he should make a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, on the other charge. He had no jurisdiction to refer the whole case. See Emperor v. Kalidas Bhudar (1898) 8 Bom. L.R. 599 and Emperor v. Vyankat sing Sambhusing : (1907)9BOMLR1057 . The case reported in In re Mutyalu (1912) I.L.R. 37 M. 236 raises a different question.2. The record will be returned to the Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Nalam Subramaniam Vs. Devara Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ562
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition the question raised is whether a judgment-debtor debarred under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for failure to certify from pleading adjustment of a decree, can nevertheless 'plead such adjustment when opposing a transfer under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The petition was argued before our learned brother Jackson, J. and in view of the differing opinions of various Judges in cases to which reference was made in the course of the argument, the matter has been posted for argument before a Full Bench.3. Jackson, J. is inclined to the view that the question raised is one which should be answered in the negative.4. Upon this question the. High Courts in India have taken different views. In this High Court, Wallace and Pakenham Walsh, JJ., in Pamidimarri Gnanamma v. Raja Seetfoarama Chandra (1929)119 I.C.480 held that the judgment-debtor could not plead an uncertified adjustment in oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnad ZamIn Devasthanam Tahsildar and ors. Vs. Kadarmeera Ambalam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ392
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. These two are connected revision petitions filed against the orders of the 2nd Class Magistrate, Mudukulathur, in M.C. Nos. 11 and 13 of 1931 on his file. In the exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, he passed an order on 12th October, 1931, restraining both the Hindus and the Mahomedans of Kamudi (styled as A party and B party) from taking any kind of procession, secular or religious, through the streets of Kamudi town or taking any part in Such a procession. On 22nd December, 1931, he passed another order in similar terms, but making an exception in the case of bona fide marriage and funeral processions, as to which he put another restriction, namely, that licenses should be obtained in good time from the Police under Section 30, Clause (2) of the Police Act (V of 1861).2. Owing to the tension of feelings between the Mahomedans and the Hindus of Kamudi in the matter of taking processions both secular and religious,...
Tag this Judgment!Tunugantla China Venkatappayya Vs. Chilankuri Punnayya (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ173
1.The question referred to us is in consequence of a difference of opinion between Waller and Pandalai, JJ., and is as follows:Had the District Judge power under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to review his order of 10th July, 1926, on the ground of error of law, that is to say, non-compliance with Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act?2. The facts upon which this question is based are as follows:- The insolvent got himself fraudulently and collusively adjudicated. In order to defeat a claim in a suit filed against him by a genuine creditor he arranged with a bogus creditor to have an insolvency petition filed before the decree could be passed and he was accordingly adjudicated an insolvent. Later on, however, the original creditor dropped out and another bogus creditor stepped in to continue the proceedings. He put in his proof of claim before the Official Receiver who rejected it. He appealed to the District Judge and his appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Nalam Subramanyam Vs. Devara Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad372; 137Ind.Cas.28
Beasley, C.J.1. In this civil revision petition the question raised is whether a judgment-debtor debarred Under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C., for failure to certify, from pleading adjustment of a decree, can nevertheless plead such adjustment when opposing a transfer Under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C.2. The petition was argued before our learned brother Jackson, J., and in view of the differing opinions of various Judges in cases to which reference was made in the course of the argument, the matter has been posted for argument before a Full Bench.3. Jackson, J., is inclined to the view that the question raised is one which should be answered in the negative.4. Upon this question the High Courts in India have taken different views. In this High Court Wallace and Pakenham Walsh, JJ., in P. Gananamma v. Seetharama Chandra : AIR1930Mad429 , held that the judgment-debtor could not plead an uncertified adjustment in opposition to an application for recognition of a transfer of a decree. The...
Tag this Judgment!Tunuguntla China Venkatappayya Vs. Chilankuri Punnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad631; 145Ind.Cas.346
Waller, J.1. This case arises out of a fraudulent and collusive adjudication in insolvency. The insolvent was anticipating failure in a suit brought against himby a genuine creditor and arranged with a bogus creditor to have an insolvency petition filed before the decree could be passed. This was done, but later, the original creditor fell out and another bogus creditor stepped in to continue the proceedings He put in his proof before the, Official Receiver who rejected it. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge which was dismissed. Not only that, the adjudication was set aside as well and an order was passed placing the money derived from the sale of the insolvent's property at the disposal of the court, which was executing the genuine creditor's decree. Now this order was open to two objections. The first was that the court had no power to annul the adjudication suo motu that could be done only on the' application of the debtor or some other interested, person. The second was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnad ZamIn Devasthanam Tahsildar and ors. Vs. Kadar Meera Ambalam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.354
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. These two are connected revision petitions filed against the orders of the Second Class Magistrate, Mudukulathur, in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 13 of 1931 on his file. In the exercise of the powers vested in him under s 144, Criminal Procedure Code, he passed an order on 12th October, 1931, restraining both the Hindus and the Muhammadans of Kamudi (styled as A party and B party) from taking any kind of procession, Becular or religious, through the streets of Kamudi town or taking any part in such a procession. On 22nd December, 1931, he passed another order in similar terms but making an exception in the case of bona fide marriage and funeral precessions, sb to which he put another restriction, namely, that licenses should be obtained in good time from the Police under Section 30, Clause 2 of the Police Act V of 1861.2. Owing to the tension of feelings between the Muhammadans and the Hindus of Kamudi in the matter of taking proe ceseicne, both secular an...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. J.V. Saldanha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ600
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax arises may be shortly stated. Mr. J.V. Saldanha, a resident of Mangalore, died in April, 1922, leaving behind him a widow and seven children, one of whom died subsequently. At the time of his death he owned coffee plantations in the Mysore State and house properties in Mangalore and was a partner to the extent of a one-third share in a firm of coffee curers styled A.J. Saldanha & Sons, Mangalore. Under the Indian Succession Act his property descended to his widow and to his children, the widow getting one-third share and the children getting equally the remaining two-thirds. They do not constitute a joint family but are tenants-in-common of the estate which has not been divided by metes and bounds. Mrs. Saldanha was originally assessed by the Income:-tax Officer on the basis that the whole of the income accrued to her. She then objected to the assessment and contended that she was the owner of only on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »