Chennai Court April 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: Gedalu Narayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.518
ORDERPakenham Waish, J.1. The complaint in this case was to the effect that A-2 was the legally married wife of the complainant; that they had lived together as man and wife for sometime after A-2 attained puberty: that A-2 owing to the ill advice of her parents A-3 and A-4 left complainant and went to live with A-3 and A-4 : that complainant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against A-2, A-3 and A-4 and got a decree, and that with a view to defeat the execution of this decree A-1 married A-2 on 5th June, 1931, aided and abetted by A-3 and A-4 knowing that A-2 continued to be the legally married wife of the complainant. A complaint under Sections 484 and 114, Indian Penal Code, was, therefore, laid against the four accused (presumably under Section 494 against A-1 and 2 and under Sections 494 and 114, Indian Penal Code, against A-3 and 4).2. The complaint was dismissed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that the second marriage did not come within the ...
Ponnamma Vs. Marampudi Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ610
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In the trial Court the plaintiff claimed a declaration that she was entitled to the plaint scheduled property and for delivery of possession of it and other reliefs. The defendants set up, amongst other defences, the defence that, disputes having arisen between the parties in or about February, 1928, with regard to the suit property, the matter was referred by them to a caste panchayat which made an award in favour of the defendants holding that the property belonged exclusively to them and pleaded that the plaintiff was bound by that award. The award of the panchayat having been proved at the trial through the leading headman of the caste panchayat, the learned City Civil Judge held that the plaintiff could not raise the same question in the suit having voluntarily submitted her case to arbitration and obtained an award. The plaintiff appeals.2. It is argued here that there was no written submission to arbitration and that, therefore, the arbit...
The President, Union Board Vs. A.M. Balakrishna Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad508
Walsh, J.1. I think the learned Sub-Magistrate was wrong in considering the notification invalid. Schedule 10, Clause 7, Madras Local Boards Act says:Any action taken by any authorities before the commencement of this Act for taking which action new authorities are substituted by or under the said Act as amended by this Act shall unless inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been taken by such new authorities unless and and until superseded by action taken by them.2. The learned Sub-Magistrate seems to think that, because in Ramchandra Rao, In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 375, it was held that the last clause in Clause (n), Schedule 5, 'likely to be dangerous to life, health or property' must be read with each of the clauses preceding the notification in this case, which was under the old Act, was invalid.3. In my opinion this is not the correct view. An action taken by a properly constituted authority should always be held to be legal unless it is demonstrably not so. Therefore when item 15...
Balijepalli Ramakoti Suryanarayana Tanodar and anr. Vs. Kampalli Ramac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad716
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In summary Suit No. 448 of 1916 on the file of the Deputy Collector, Nidadavole--the landholder obtained a decree for rent against 6 defendants. Subsequently, the landholder applied to the Court of the Deputy Collector for attachment and sale of 150 acres in R.S. field No. 567 and attachment was made on 8th September 1908. Thereupon, R. Ramchandrudu put in a claim petition in the Deputy Collector's Court Under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., on the ground that the property attached was in his possession and enjoyment, and that the judgment debtor had nothing to do with the same. But the landholder decree-holder filed a counter petition pointing out that rent due to him being the first charge on the holding any transfer made subsequent to the date of the arrears could not save the transferred part of the holding from being liable for the arrears and that the claim was further unsustainable as the claimant had bought the property from the prior raiyats subsequent...
(Peria) Kalathi Mudali Vs. Venkatesa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad277
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The accused in this case were convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 352, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each, out of which Rs. 25 was ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W. 1, the petitioner. On appeal they were acquitted. This revision petition is against the acquittal, the only ground being that the petitioner was not in a position to deal effectively with the pleas raised for the accused in appeal.2. The petitioner has put in an affidavit in which he says that the notice of appeal was served on him on 15th November 1931, at about 12 noon, at his village of Tirumalpur which is three miles away from Pallur Railway Station; Sholingur camp was 9 miles from the Sholingur Railway Station. He left his village for Sholingur by 6-30 p.m. train and reached Sholingur Station at 11 p.m. He took a bus to Sholingur town at 6 a.m. next morning and reached Sholingur town at 7 a.m. He represented to the Sub-divisional Magistrate that he could not br...
President, Panchayat Board Vs. (Mandla) Chinna Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad537
Walsh, J.1. The accused in this case was charged with disobedience of a notice served on him by the Union Board to vacate an encroachment. He then represented that it had been removed which was found to be untrue. An application to be given the site was refused and finally notice was issued to him Under Section 159(1) which he did not obey. Process was sent to the accused and the case was taken up by one Magistrate who was succeeded by another. The accused claimed a de novo trial. In the course of the de novo trial the defence was set up that as the accused had been previously convicted of the same offence he could not be again tried. The learned Sub-Magistrate for this and other reasons said:I do not see sufficient grounds to proceed further. I dismiss the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C.2. That is quite obviously a wrong order. Notice having gone to the accused and arguments having been heard the proceedings had gone past the stage at which the complaint could be dismissed....
Rathina Gramany and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad675
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The three petitioners have been convicted of conducting a common gaming house Under Section 45, Act 3 of 1880. The Police Inspector P.W, 1 raided the hut on 2nd December 1931. He found A-2, A-3 and 8 others playing cards with stakes. He seized the playing cards with some cash which was on the ground. His enquiry showed that A-2 and A-3 were conducting the gaming house and that A-1 and the absent accused Kuppuraju were also connected with the management. This Revision Petition has been put in against the conviction and I think it must be allowed. There is no evidence that the hut was searched on a warrant and consequently the presumption which could be raised Under Section 43 from the finding of instruments of gaming that the place was used as a common gaming house does not arise and it must be shown independently that the accused were guilty of the offence Under Section 45 by opening, keeping or using or permitting to be used this hut as a common gaming house.Common ga...
(Mudila) Kuramayya and ors. Vs. Suru Satyanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad700
ORDERWalsh, J.1. In this case the accused was convicted of resisting a distraint made by the complainant Under Section 212, Clause 1(b), Madras Estates Land Act. The complainant described himself in the complaint as an inamdar in the village of Chukkavalsa. All the accused executed a kadapa for three years at a rent of Rs. 102 a year. Under Section 134(2) a distraint can only be made in these circumstances from a tenant from whom the inamdar has taken a written agreement stating a fixed rent to be paid by the tenant. The rental agreement is not on stamped paper nor is it registered though it requires to be both stamped and registered. The trial Court apparently did not notice the want of registration and held that the want of stamp did not invalidate it from being used as evidence in a criminal case.2. In the appellate Court the question as to want of registration was dealt with and the learned Subdivisional Magistrate says as follows:According to Section 52(1), Estates Land Act, it is...
Sebastian Lobo Vs. Mingel D'Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad676
ORDERWalsh, J.1. In this case the accused and the complainant were neighbours and there was a dispute as regards the boundary between them which was not demarcated. The accused had put up a wall and the complainant sent a notice, Ex. A saying that he encroached on his side. To this the accused retorted by Ex. B stating that the complainant's roof encroached upon his plot and there was possibility of rain water falling on his newly built boundary wall and each of them ordered the other to remove the encroachment on his land. From his own admission in the sworn statement the complainant removed the accused's wall on 22nd April 1931, and on 24th April 1981, the accused removed part of the complainant's roof which he considered was an encroachment on his site. He has been criminally convicted of an offence Under Section 427, I.P.C., by a Bench of three Magistrates writing the majority judgment and one writing a dissenting judgment.2. The first ground raised in this revision petition is tha...
Paladugu Lakshminarayana and ors. Vs. Tadiboyina Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad502; (1932)63MLJ101
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an application to quash the commitment order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tenali in C.C. No. 44 of 1931. There was an occurrence on 15th August, 1931. The Police filed a charge against one party which included a charge of murder. A counter-complaint was made and the Police tiled a referred charge sheet on the ground that the injuries found on the complainant were due to a right of private defence. In that case a private complaint was made to the Court and taken on file. The case charged by the Police was Pr. C. No. 3 of 1931. It was committed to the Sessions. The private complaint in the counter-case was taken up as a warrant case under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate proceeded with it as a warrant case not only up to the framing of the charge but to the point of asking the accused to plead to it and whether they wished to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The accused said that they wished to re-cross-ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »