Chennai Court November 1932 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: M. Mounaguruswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ150
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This transfer petition was directed by me to be placed before this Full Bench not because of any difficulty which arises in the petition which is not opposed but because it is a favourable opportunity for resolving difficulties with regard to procedure which have arisen on account of conflicting opinions expressed by this High Court.2. One of these is Krishna Pannadi v. Emperor 1929 M.W.N. 883, a decision of Jackson, J., and another is Kandregula Jaggu Naidu v. Emperor 1929 M.W.N. 881, a decision of Reilly and Krishnan Pandalai, JJ. Some difficulty has probably been created also by Krishtamma v. Emperors, a decision of Waller and Cornish, JJ. These cases lay down the procedure to be adopted at the trial of cases and counter-cases, the two former by Sessions Judges and the latter by Magistrates. In Krishna Pannadi v. Emperor 1929 M.W.N. 883 Jackson, J., stated:There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter-cases, a defect which the Legislat...
In Re: Modali Lakshmi Narasimham Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad372
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 122(1), Railways Act, of unlawfully entering upon a railway and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. The evidence shows that in order to reach the platform of the Nellore Railway Station he crossed the line instead of entering it by the ordinary route. The only point taken is that the prosecution has not demonstrated that such action constitutes an unlawful entry or a trespass. There is evidence, which the Courts have accepted, that there was a notice-board put at the station prohibiting such trespass and the accused's conduct was said to have constituted a breach of that notice. Inasmuch as this point was not specifically challenged at the trial the prosecution was not put to the proof of the authority upon which that notice was based. Had this been done, I have no doubt that it could have been shown that the notice was perfectly justified by some rule or regulation. I am not going to believe that persons can wander about r...
V. Thirumala Chariar Vs. Athimoola Karayalar (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad529; 145Ind.Cas.289; (1933)65MLJ15
Reilly, J.1. The Plaintiff in this case has sued to enforce an agreement embodied in Ex. A, dated 7th October, 1916, to convey to him 1 acre and 68 cents of wet land, which document he alleges was executed by Nambi Kone, the deceased husband of Defendant 1 and father of Defendant 7. The Subordinate Judge has found that Ex. A is not genuine and has dismissed the suit. Against that dismissal the Plaintiff appeals.2. It appears that Nambi Kone in 1907 instituted a suit for partition against his nephews, Defendant 2, and the father of Defendants 4 to 6, in the Tinnevelly Subordinate Judge's Court. That suit came on appeal to this Court and altogether had a long history. In the end Nambi Kone got a decree for a half share of the property in question, and his share was delivered to him in execution in May, 1916. It is admitted that Nambi Kone employed the Plaintiff to assist him in that suit by attending Court for him both in Tinnevelly and Madras and that the employment went on throughout t...
Narappa Naicken Vs. Govindaraja Naicken (Minor) by Guardian Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ531
Curgenven, J.1. The appellant holds a money decree passed ex parte against the respondent by the Court of the District Munsif of Quilon. It was transferred to the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruppur for execution and the judgment-debtor was arrested. An application by him for his release on security for the purpose of getting the decree set aside was granted and he thereupon applied to the Quilon Court to set aside the ex parte decree. In that application the Quilon Court ordered an interim stay but eventually dismissed it for default and intimated to the Tiruppur Court that it might proceed with the execution. Thereupon the judgment-debtor filed an application to set aside the order of arrest and dismiss the execution petition on the grounds that the foreign Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree against him and that he had not submitted to it. The District Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that although the decree, being passed without jurisdiction, was a null...
Narappa Naicken Vs. Rangasami Naichen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad393
Curgenven, J.1. The appellant holds a money decree passed ex parte against the respondent by the Court of the District Munsif of Quilon. It was transferred to the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupur for execution and the judgment-debtor was arrested. An application by him for his release on security for the purpose of getting the decree set aside was granted and he thereupon applied to the Quilon Court to set aside the ex parte decree. In that application the Quilon Court ordered an interim, stay, but eventually dismissed it for default and intimated to the Tirupur Court that it might proceed with the execution. Thereupon the judgment-debtor filed an application to set aside the order of arrest and dismiss the execution petition on the grounds that the foreign Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree against him and that he had not submitted to it. The District Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that although the decree, being passed without jurisdiction, was a null...
P. Ramaraja Nadar and ors. Vs. T.M.P. Chidambara Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad345
Curgenven, J.1. The father of the four minor petitioners was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver obtained an ex parte order that his debts were binding upon them. The property, including their interest, was sold by the Official Receiver and purchased by respondent 1 who applied for and obtained from the Subordinate Judge, an ex parte order for the delivery of the property. After delivery had been given the minor petitioners through their mother filed an application, so styled, for review of the Subordinate Judge's order, and the learned Subordinate Judge, after framing issues and considering the circumstances dismissed the petition. An appeal was taken from this dismissal to the District Judge who however decided that, since the order was in the nature of a refusal to grant an application for review, it fell under Order 47, Rule 7 and no appeal would lie. This finding of the District Judge has been challenged in this revision petition.2. It is no doubt true that the petitio...
S. Rama Ayyar Vs. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad838
Curgenven, J.1. In a suit, O.S. No. 241 of 1918, by a puisne mortgagee, the appellant bought the property subject to a decree (O.S. No. 322 of 1917) passed to enforce the prior mortgage. Subsequently the holders of this latter decree brought the property to sale without impleading the appellant and bought it themselves. The appellant, who had paid Rs. 1,050 for the equity of redemption at his sale, was thus left without any title to the property. He has instituted proceedings in execution in O.S. No. 322 of 1917 with the object of having the sale under that decree set aside, but he has failed in both the lower Courts.2. It is conceded before me that the case does not fall under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, because there was no irregularity or fraud in the actual conduct of the sale. Indeed if it had fallen under that rule, no second appeal would lie to this Court. Taking it as a case under Section 47 we must, in the first place, consider what the position is which the appellant occup...
(Velugubantla) Papamma Vs. Ravula Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad622
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is to enforce a mortgage deed dated 4th June 1924, executed by defendant 1 with reference to certain lands mentioned in Sch. A to the plaint, and his share in the mill referred to in Sch. B situated at Ramachandrapur. The machinery of the mill was subsequently removed to Cocanada where a new mill was constructed with the same materials. This new mill is mentioned in Sch. C. Before the removal, the mill lay within the jurisdiction of the Rajahmundry Sub-Court. The plaintiff now seeks a decree against the lands and defendant 1's share in the mill at Cocanada in the place of that at Rajahmundry. Defendant 2 is an assignee of the Sch. C property. Defendant 3 obtained a decree against defendant 1 in a suit for money, O.S. No. 192 of 1925, on the file of the Ramachandrapur District Munsif's Court and in execution, attached defendant l's share in the mill at Cocanada. Defendant 4 obtained a money decree against defendant 3 and in execution thereof atta...
S. Rama Iyer Vs. Ramachandran (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.528
Curgenven, J.1. In a suit, O.S. No. 241 of 1918, by a puisne mortgagee the appellant bought the property subject to a decree (O.S. No. 322 of 1917) passed to enforce the prior mortgage Subsequently the holders of this latter decree brought the property to sale without impleading the appellant and bought it themselves. The appellant, who had paid Rs. 1,050 for the equity of redemption at his sale, was thus left without any title to the property. He has instituted proceedings in execution in O.S. No 322 of 1917 with the object of having the sale under that decree set aside, but he has failed in both the lower Courts.2. It is conceded before me that the case does not fall under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, because there was no irregularity or fraud in the actual conduct of the sale. Indeed if it had fallen under that rule, no second appeal would lie to this Court. Taking it as a case under Section 47 we must, in the first place, consider what the position is which the appella...
In Re: A. Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ791
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. I have not been shown that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wrong in refusing a further opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. His predecessor had heard the prosecution case and framed a charge before he was transferred. As has been held in Sriramulu v. Veerasalingam I.L.R. (1914) 38 Mad. 585 : 27 M.L.J. 589 it is not in such circumstances open to the second Magistrate to ignore the charge. He must proceed with the case on the footing that the charge has already been framed. The right of the accused then is to be found in proviso (a) to Section 350(1), Criminal Procedure Code. It is sometimes loosely described as a right to a de novo trial, but all that the provision allows is that he may demand that the witnesses or any of them be resummoned and re-heard. When a charge has already been framed, this, as Ayling, J. remarks, makes the Magistrate's position practically the same as that of his predecessor would have been if, aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »