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.
Ramaswamy Naicken Vs. Dandakaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad840; 147Ind.Cas.738; (1933)65MLJ732
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. In this case a conviction of theft was based upon the rescue by the respondents of certain buffaloes which had been attached under a decree by an amin and had been handed over to two persons on their furnishing security. The conviction has been set aside and the respondents acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and this is a revision petition against the acquittal.2. The first question which it raises is whether in the circumstances the respondents' act in rescuing the buffaloes amounted to theft. It may very well be that they committed an unlawful act in taking them out of the custody of the sureties, but it does not seem to me necessarily to follow that that unlawful act was in the nature of theft. The finding of the lower appellate Court, though it is expressed in somewhat indefinite terms, appears to be that the respondents actually owned the cattle which were attached and that they did not belong to the judgment-debtor. Such a case, of course, differs entire...
Nadumogru Ammu Shetty and ors. Vs. Bapa Alias Kunta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad842; (1933)65MLJ797
Curgenven, J.1. It is unnecessary for me to express any opinion there with regard to the merits of the learned Sessions Judge's view that the convictions under Sections 326 and 148, Indian Penal Code, cannot stand together. He has accordingly set aside the convictions under Section 148, and the argument now advanced before me is that having set aside those convictions the constructive liability of those accused who were not found guilty of actually beating the complainant cannot now be visited by conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. I do not think that there is any force in this contention. Section 149, Indian Penal Code, only lays down that where an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object or such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence. Accor...
(Thrikkaikat Madathil Mooppu Stanom Kollath) Raman Thirumumpu Vs. (Mul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad852; 147Ind.Cas.735
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The grant sought to be set aside in the suit was made by a previous matathipathi in the year 1025, corresponding to 1849-1850. It is evidenced by Ex. A, and it recites that for a sum of 2,470 fanams (the kanam and the puramkadam amounts) the land is demised to the grantee, who may hold it on Karankari right without being liable to surrender it. Ex. A mentions the total pattam to be 389 paras odd, out of which about 106 paras are to be retained by the grantee for interest on the kanam and puramkadam amounts and the balance of about 282 paras is to be paid to the grantor for purapad. The grant goes on to say that the kanam shall be renewed from time to time on payment of the renewal fee and that the grantee may enjoy the property in perpetuity. The property is said to belong to a davaswom, of which the head for the time being of the mutt in question is the manager.2. The first point that I have to decide is, whether the predecessor of the plaintiff exceeded his pow...
Srivilliputtur Municipal Council Vs. K.G.A. Arunachala Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad332
Walsh, J.1. Under Ordinance 9 of 1914 and the rules prescribed thereunder the plaintiff's were appointed wholesale dealers of rice at Sattur. The defendant Municipal Council of Srivilliputur appointed a Local Emergency Committee for the purchase of rice from the plaintiffs. This Local Committee used to indent for the monthly supply and the Collector allotted the quantity to be supplied. In January 1920 the defendant Municipality applied for a certain2. For the appellant it is contended that a breach of a statutory Regulation does not fall under Section 65, Contract Act. Annada Mohan Roy v. Gour Mohan Mullick AIR 1923 PC 189 is strongly relied on. There, there was a contract by a Hindu to sell immovable property to which he was the next reversionary heir-expectant upon the death of a widow in possession and to transfer it upon possession accruing to him. It was held that this being void under Section 6(a), T.P. Act, 1882 the time at which such an agreement is 'discovered to be void' so ...
Sorimuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthukrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad598; (1933)65MLJ253
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of a petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 12 of 1928 under Sections 47, 151 and Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which they asked either that the Court should not confirm the auction sale held in execution of the decree against them or that the Court should set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, for which they deposited 5 per cent, of the purchase money.2. The property was sold in two lots; one lot was purchased by the decree-holders themselves who were respondents 1 and 2 to the petition, and the other lot was purchased by the 3rd respondent. The Lower Courts refused to confirm the sale so far as the first lot was concerned as the purchasers were decree-holders themselves, but with regard to the 3rd respondent to the petition, who is a stranger auction-purchaser, the Court dismissed both the prayers in the petition. It is against this order that the present civi...
Duraiswami thevan Vs. K.N.K.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad537
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point raised by the appeal is, whether the alleged defamatory statement made by the defendant is absolutely privileged. Under the sections of the Madras Estates Land Act relating to the appraisement and division of the produce, the landholder (the plaintiff in the case) presented an application, and under Section 75 an officer was deputed to carry out the functions specified in that section. In the inquiry that followed, the defendant (who was a raiyat under the plaintiff) gave a long oral statement, and in the course of it, made the allegation (said to amount to slander) that the plaintiff had murdered his (defendant's) father-in-law. One of the pleas raised by the defendant in this connexion is, that he did not make the allegation imputed to him; but this point is concluded by the concurrent finding against him of the two Courts below.2. The question of law is, as I have said, whether the statement is absolutely privileged. Mr. A. Srinivasa Ayyangar for the...
Jujisti Mahapatro Vs. Korada Magata Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad442; (1933)64MLJ695
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is going to deliver and I agree with him. As the question involved in the appeal is of some importance, I will briefly record my reasons in support of my conclusion.2. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the transferee decree-holder for passing a final decree in a mortgage suit. The facts of this case are not disputed. In O.S. No. 7 of 1918 on the file of the District Court of Ganjam, which was a suit on a mortgage, a preliminary decree for sale was passed on 12th December, 1921, fixing six months, for the payment of the decree amount. An appeal against the decree was filed in the High Court--Appeal No. 259 of 1923--by the 5th judgment-debtor. Notice was ordered in the appeal, and some of the respondents were served. At this stage 'the appeal itself was withdrawn by the appellant and it was dismissed with the costs of those respondents that appeared. The order passed by the High ...
In Re: R.P. O'Hearn
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad461a
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner got up a dance which he advertised in the 'Madras Mail' on 13th April last (Ex. I-A). Tickets for this dance were to cost 12 annas for a gentleman and eight annas for a lady and were purchasable at a certain place in Madras, and if tickets were bought at the door at the time of the entertainment they were to cost one rupee. I do not think there is any doubt that a perusal of this advertisement shows that these were the sums which were chargeable for the tickets themselves. The tickets that were issued were not stamped with any embossed or adhesive stamp showing that any tax had been paid, as is required by Section 4, Madras Local Authorities Entertainments Act, and accordingly the petitioner has been convicted under Section 6 of not complying with the terms of Section 4 and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 together with the amount of the tax. His defence is that the cost of admission to his entertainment was no more than four annas and that...
(Kotikalapudi) Pakirayya Vs. (Kodiyala) Kamasastri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad328
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. The properties involved in the appeal are half of the items in the plaint, other than items 1, 6, 9, 10 portions of 12 and items 21 and 22: see p. 19 of the judgment. These properties were in the possession of defendant 2's husband as a tenant under the zamindar. They were sold in execution for non-payment of arrears of rent under the Estates Land Act. The plaintiff's case is that at such sale the zamindar purchased the lands and afterwards gave pattas to him, constituting him a tenant under the Act. These lands were attached in execution of a decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2's husband. The attachment was on 2nd September 1921. The plaintiff filed objections to the attachment in 1922. The pattas which were given to him with respect to these properties are Exs. D and D-l dated 3rd October 1923 and 6th February 1922. At the date of the attachment he was no...
Kotta Nagarattamma Vs. Immadi Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad658; 145Ind.Cas.831; (1933)65MLJ362
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner on the 7th October, 1931, filed an appeal in forma pauperis. On the 12th October, 1931, the District Court ordered notice to the Government Pleader and to the respondents. Notices were accordingly taken. The Government Pleader did not oppose the application but various of the respondents filed counters. Eventually the case came on for hearing before a successor of the learned District Judge who had dealt with the case so far and on the 11th March, 1932, an order was passed dismissing the application. The ground stated for so dismissing it was that the judgment and decree did not comply with the terms of the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code; in other words, that there was no reason to think that the decree was contrary to law or was otherwise erroneous or unjust.2. I do not think that the learned District Judge was justified, at the stage which had been reached, in disposing of the petition under the terms of that proviso. The proviso itse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »