Chennai Court March 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.
Marukkolandayammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad664; (1932)63MLJ249
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question in this case is whether a sale of land for arrears of revenue under Act II of 1864, all the proceedings in which were conducted after the death of the defaulter in the register and without the prescribed notices being given to any living person as defaulter, is valid. There is no direct authority on the point though it must have occurred frequently.2. The facts are not in dispute. Chinnaswami Chetty, who died about 10 years before the suit, was the registered pattadar of field No. 101, 4 acres 9 cents in extent, in Tattampatti village in Krislmagiri Ta'luq in Salem District. The plaintiff is his widow. lie and his widow lived in Kallavi village in Uttankarai Taluq about 10 miles from the property.3. After Chinnaswami Chetty's death the register was not corrected as it should have been by the Collector under Regulation XXVI of 1802. But the village officials were content to collect the revenue from the plaintiff who paid it till fasli 1330. In fasli ...
Lakshmana Dorai and ors. Vs. Arunagiri Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad495
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Salem in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1931, that certain sandalwood taken by the accused from P. W. 4 should be returned to P. W. 4. The sandalwood was the subject of a charge of theft and was found by the police in the possession of accused 1 and 2. P. W. 4 claimed to have cut and stored it as lessee of P. W. 3, and the latter put forward his title to the property as the Pattarkaran or Jagirdar of the Kalrayan Hills. The case was tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Attur and accused 1 and 24 others were convicted. On appeal the Subdivisional Magistrate of Salem found that in seizing the sandalwood the accused acted under a bona fide claim of right and acquitted them, but ordered the sandalwood to be returned to P. W. 4. It is this latter order which is now sought to be revised.2. There is no question about the general rule in the case of orders Under Section 517, Criminal P. C., that t...
P.P.V.P.L. Chockalingam Chettiar (Deaceased) and anr. Vs. K.P.S.A.R. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ689
Jackson, J.1. A suit valued at Rs. 768 was within the small cause jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta. The District Munsif of Devakotta was trying a connected suit within his original side jurisdiction. For convenience of parties the small cause suit was transferred by the District Judge of Ramnad to the file of the District Munsif. The petitioner moves this Court to declare, in revision, that the District Judge acted without jurisdiction.2. The short point is whether a District Munsif is 'competent to try' a small cause suit beyond his small cause jurisdiction and within the small cause jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge. Because if he is not 'competent to try' the District Court could not have transferred the suit to him under Section 24(1)(a), Civil Procedure Code.3. Ordinarily a District Munsif would be competent to try a suit valued at Rs. 768; but if his munsifi is included in the jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge who has been given small cause powers up to Rs...
The Public Prosecutor and Lakshmamma and anr. Vs. Mitta Venkatamma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ153
Curgenven, J.1. This case comes before me owing to a difference of opinion between Waller and Pandalai, JJ. The facts have been stated fully in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and briefly but sufficiently in that of Waller, J. On Thursday, the 2nd April, 1931, a male child aged 3 entered or was decoyed into the house of which the two respondents, who are mother and daughter, are inmates, and there murdered. The motive for the crime was undoubtedly a wish of the husband of the 2nd respondent, Kondayya, to adopt the boy, which for easily understood reasons would be objectionable to the two women. They were tried on charges both of murder and of causing the disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code. As regards the former charge, the learned Sessions Judge found that the child must have been killed either by both the women together or by one of the two; but he was of opinion that the...
N. Kandaswami Pillai Vs. T.J. Arunachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad656
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 136 of .1929 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Dindigul. The suit was for winding up the affairs of a partnership, for taking accounts and for recovery of 3/8ths share of the profits alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the partnership. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was a partner. Two issues were framed in the suit: (1) Whether the plaintiff was a partner of the defendant? (2) What, if any, is the amount due on the taking of accounts'? In para. 8 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that though large amounts were due to the plaintiff, as the account books wore with the defendant and the plaintiff had no access to the same, the plaintiff valued the ralief claimed in the plaint Under Section 7, Clause 4(f), of the Court-fees Act at Rs. 100, and paid the court fee due thereon. The defendant in his written statement did not object to that valuation or to the jurisdiction of t...
The Rajah of Vizianagram Vs. the Government Represented by the Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ73
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. These revision petitions raise the question as regards the proper Court-fee payable in a suit filed by a landholder against the ryots under Section 193 of the Madras Estates Land Act for enhancement of rent. Each revision petition relates to a suit for enhancement of rent against the ryots of a particular village, and each of the seven revision petitions relates to each of the seven villages. The grounds for enhancement alleged in the plaints are the same. The suits having been dismissed, appeals were preferred by the landholder and the question arose whether Section 17 of the Court-Fees Act applies to the case, and whether the Court-fee payable in respect of the appeal was the Court-fee payable on the total of the rents of the immoveable property to which the suit relates payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. (Section 7(xi)(b) of the Court-Fees Act) or whether the Court-fee payable is the aggregate of the Court-fees separately pa...
Ahmed HussaIn Vs. President, Union Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad660
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner was convicted for failure to pay a certain sum due by him as lessee of a slaughter-house and temporary market. The agreement itself was subsequent to the new Madras Local Boards Act 11 of 1930. The proceedings appear to have been taken Under Section 221(2) of the old Act. There is no such subsection in the new Act. Section 221(2) of the old Act relates to procedure. Briefly the argument for the petitioner is this: if the conviction was under the old Act, it cannot be sustained in the light of the ruling in Punya Syamolo, In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 669. If it was under the new Act, it cannot be sustained because the proceedings have been irregular. I think this contention must prevail. The scheme of the old Act Under Section 221 was that on a default, apparently whether wilful or not, reference could be made to a Magistrate who could summon the parties to appear before him and on their appearance hear and determine the question, if necessary placing either pa...
Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Government Represented by the Govt. Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad667
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These revision petitions raise the question as regards the proper court-fee payable in a suit filed by a landholder against the raiyats Under Section 193, Madras Estates Land Act, for enhancement of rent. Each revision petition relates to a suit for enhancement of rent against the raiyats of a particular village, and each of the seven revision petitions relates to each of the seven villages. The grounds for enhancement alleged in the plaints are the same. The suits having been dismissed, appeals were preferred by the landholder, and the question arose whether Section 17, Court-fees Act, applied to the case, and whether the court-fee payable in respect of the appeal was the court-fee payable on the total of the rents of the immovable property to which the suit relates, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint [Section 7(11)(b)], Court-fees Act, or whether the court-fee payable was the aggregate of the court-fees separately payable in r...
Ahmad HussaIn Sahib Vs. the President, Union Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.370
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioner was convicted for failure to pay a certain sum due by him as lessee of a slaughter house and temporary market. The agreement itself was subsequent to the new Madras Local Boards Act XI of 1930 The proceedings appear to have been taken under Section 221(2) of the old Act. There is no such sub-section in the new Act. Section 221(2) of the old Act relates to procedure. Briefly the argument for the petitioner is this. If the conviction was under the old Act, it cannot be sustained in the light of the ruling in In re Punya Syamolo 77 Ind. Cas 240 : 47 M. 381 : 25 Cri. L. J. 352: A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 669. If it was under the new Act, it cannot be sustained because the proceedings have been irregular. I think this contention must prevail. The scheme of the old Act under Section 221 was that on a default, apparently whether wilful or not, reference could be made to a Magistrate who could summon the parties to appear before him and on their appearance hear a...
Marina Narasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ142
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry in the matter of a claim put forward to certain properties seized under Section 386, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused's family originally consisted of seven brothers, one of whom is dead leaving children. One out of the six surviving brothers, the accused, was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Police seized and carried away certain movable properties. The brothers put in a claim. They alleged that the properties in C and D Schedules were the separate properties of two of the brothers, that those in E Schedule were the separate properties of the mother and that those in B Schedule were joint family properties. As regards the E Schedule properties the Lower Court found that the mother was no party to the proceedings and as none of the petitioners held a power-of-attorney for her they had no locus standi to complain of the proceedings as regards the said pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »