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.
Manikya Nayanim Varu and ors. Vs. Lakshminarasimha Sastrulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad43; (1932)63MLJ319
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendants 3 to 7 and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (first respondent) for a declaratory relief in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and a brief reference to them is necessary in order to understand the nature of the dispute in this case. Palayagar Chengama Nayanim Vara (No. 1) was in possession of 62 villages including the three villages mentioned in the plaint schedule B as usufructuary mortgagee under two mortgage deeds, dated the 17th May, 1890 and executed by the Rajah of Karvetnagar. He died in or about 1893 leaving behind him four sons, namely, Vijayappa Nayanim Varu, Govindasami Nayanim Vara and defendants 3 and 4. By means of an award, a partition was effected among these four sons, whereby 14 out of the 62 villages including the three villages mentioned in Schedule B were allotted to the share of Govindasami Nay...
Chingurupati Venkatasubba Rao and anr. Vs. Naraharisetty Anjaneyalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ679
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the learned Sessions Judge of West Godavari directing further enquiry into a complaint of kidnapping. This complaint of kidnapping had been originally made to the Police on 15th March, 1931. The Police sent a referred charge-sheet to the Sub-divisional Magistrate who ordered the Police to put in a charge-sheet. In reply to this the Police again put in a referred charge-sheet; meanwhile the Sub-divisional Magistrate who passed the order directing a charge-sheet to be put in was succeeded by another. The latter agreed with the Police and by his order on 27th June, 1931, directed the case to be treated as one of a civil nature. An application to revise this order was made before the Sessions Judge who ordered further enquiry into the complain and it is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.2. The matter really turns upon the question as to whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate who directed the Polic...
Devessy Pathaj Kathavala by Power Holder, Anandaji Malsi Vs. the New B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ736
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He was the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 80 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, the defendant being the firm of B.M.V. Kini Brothers, agents of the Bombay Steamships, Limited. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the price of 5 bags of certain grains, which, he alleged, formed part of a consignment which he shipped from Bombay to Cochin in the defendant's Steamer 'S. Section Indira'. The allegation is that the plaintiff sent 157 bags of grains of different kinds by the said Steamer from Bombay to Cochin and that when delivery was made at Cochin there was a shortage of 2 bags of oorid and 3 bags of long dhal. In the place of the above the defendant offered 5 bags of onions. The plaintiffs declined to accept the same, and accordingly filed a suit to recover the price of 2 bags of oorid and 3 bags of long dhal. The plea of the defendant was that though in the bill o...
(Chigurupati) Venkata Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Naraharisetty Anjanayulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad673
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the learned Sessions Judge of West Godaveri directing further inquiry into a complaint of kidnapping. This complaint of kidnapping had been originally made to the police on 15th March 1931. The police sent a referred charge sheet to the Subdivisional Magistrate who ordered the police to put in a charge sheet. In reply to this the police again put in a referred charge sheet; meanwhile the Subdivisional Magistrate who passed the order directing a charge sheet to be put in was succeeded by another.2. The latter agreed with the police and by his order on 27th June 1931 directed the ease to be treated as one of a civil nature. An application to revise this order was made before the Sessions Judge who ordered further inquiry into the complaint and it is against this order that this revision petition has been filed. The matter really turns upon the question as to whether the Subdivisional Magistrate who directed the police to put in a ...
Devessey Pathraj Kathavala Vs. the New Bombay Steamships Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad7; 139Ind.Cas.623
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He was the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 80 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, the defendant being the firm of B.N.V. Kini Brothers, agents of the Bombay Steamships Ltd. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the price of 5 bags of certain grain, which, he alleged, formed part of a consignment which he shipred from Bombay to Cochin in the defendants Steamer S.S. Indira. The allegation is that tha plaintiff sent 157 bags of grains of different kinds by the said Steamer from Bombay to Cochin and that when delivery was made at Cochin there was a shortage of 2 bags of oorid and 3 bags of long dhal. In the place of the above the defendant offered 5 bags of onions. The plaintiffs declined to accept the same, and accordingly filed a suit to recover the price of 2 bags of oorid and 3 bags of long dhal. The plea of the defendant was that though in the Bill of Lading, in the margin the ...
K.T.K.A. Alagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad678
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The six accused in C.C. No. 81 of 1931 on the file of the Taluk Magistrate of Tirupathur were convicted of an offence Under Section 9, Madras Gambling Act, 3 of 1930. The convictions were confirmed on appeal. Against this revision petitions are filed by accused 1, 3 and 6. Mr. Mocket appears for accused 1 and accused 3 and 6 are represented by Mr. Jayarama Ayyar. The facts of the case are stated in the judgments of the lower Courts. They are briefly these: P.W. 2. who was on inimical terms with accused 6, gave information to P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi, that gambling was going on in the house of accused 6. P.W. 1 applied to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for a warrant and with this he raided the house at 8 15 p.m. on 20th December 1930, accompanied by a Sub-Inspector, four Head constables and three constables. All the six accused were seated on a carpet and a rattan mat in a raised dais in a circle. Each had a small heap of cholis or small shell...
Alimane Sahiba Vs. Kolisetti Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad693; (1932)63MLJ303
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff in Section C. Suit No. 861 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nellore. The plaintiff instituted the above small cause suit on the footing of a promissory note, dated 4th August, 1925, executed by the defendant in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 180. The plaint was filed on 4th August, 1928, namely, the last day of the period of limitation for filing a suit on the promissory note. The defendant, after obtaining time to file a written statement, filed a written statement on 1st October, 1928, in which he admitted the execution of the promissory note sued on but pleaded discharge. Subsequently, as the learned District Munsif remarks in his judgment, 'when the argument upon the question of discharge was proceeding, the defendant discovered a legal objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the stamp affixed to the promissory note had not been cancelled as required by Section 12...
Narayanaswami Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad507
Walsh, J.1. The petitioner was according to the prosecution case, found by P. W. 1, the Excise Sub-Inspector, travelling in a bus to Tranquebar carrying 165 tolas of opium which he said one Nayakar had given him at Chidambaram with instructions to meet him at Karaikal, in French Territory and give it to him. It is immaterial whether this statement to the Sub-Inspector is inadmissible because the accused stated the same thing in his written statement. He was first charged Under Section 9(a) and (b), Opium Act, and evidence was recorded. But the charge was subsequently altered to one Under Section 7 read with Section 20, Dangerous Drugs Act. The main contention in the revision petition, is that assuming the prosecution case to be true, this was not an attempt to commit an offence but a mere preparation. The village at which the accused was found in possession of the opium was Tirukadayur. This village is at some distance from Tranquebar to which the bus was proceeding from Mayavaram. May...
C. Jayaram Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad564
ORDERWalsh, J.1. In this case the accused pleaded guilty and I am not prepared in revision to go into the allegation that the Court misunderstood him. There is however one point raised that with regard to the license for the second half of 1929-30 the prosecution is barred by limitation Under Section 392, City Municipal Act, having been instituted only on 7th November 1930. That section runs.No person shall be liable to be tried for any offence against any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it, unless complaint is made before a Magistrate within six months after the commission of the offence:Provided that failure to take out a license, obtain permission or secure registration under this Act shall for the purposes of sub-(1) be deemed a continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any for which the license, permission or registration is required, and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within 12 mon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›