Chennai Court December 1933 Judgments
M.K. Mahomed Asan Maracair Vs. A.K. Bijli Sahib Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad269; (1934)66MLJ367
1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Election Commissioner in O.P. No. 56 of 1932, the Commissioner being the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly.2. The facts of the case may now be stated. An election had to be held for the Tiruchendur Circle to the District Board of Tinnevelly. There are two seats for that Circle. One of the seats is reserved for a Muhammadan and the other seat is open to all and a Muhammadan may be elected even for that seat. Three candidates stood for these two seats. One was Mr. Daniel Thomas Nadar, a Christian, and he was elected by an overwhelming majority of votes and no question about the validity of his election arises before me. The other two candidates were two Muhammadan gentlemen, viz., Mr. M. K. Mahomed Asan Maracair, the petitioner before the Election Commissioner and the respondent before me, and Mr. A. K. Bijli Sahib, Advocate, Tinnevelly, the 1st respondent before the Election Commissioner and the pet...
Tag this Judgment!(Godavarti) Sobhanadramma Vs. (Godavarti) Varaha Lakshmi Narasimhaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad401; 150Ind.Cas.797
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree in a suit for maintenance brought by her against respondent 1, her husband, and respondent 2, her husband's elder brother by birth. Her suit was based upon the allegation that both the respondents form members of an undivided family, that she had been deserted by her husband and that therefore she was entitled to future maintenance an arrears of maintenance for 12 years before the suit at the rate of Rs. 50 a month. The learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry found that the defendants though brothers by birth no longer belonged to the same family because defendant 1 had been adopted away by the widow of his paternal uncle Raghavaeharyulu and that therefore the plaintiff had no claim for maintenance against defendant 2 whose father had himself been adopted away to another 'family. As against defendant 1 the learned Judge found on the first issue that the plaintiff was the second wife of defendant 1 the first wife having predeceased the...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mopurappa Vs. K. Ramaswami Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad418; 152Ind.Cas.538
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J., which, as our learned brother says, raises a very interesting point of law. It relates to an oral agreement or arrangement entered into on 13th July 1931 between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent. This agreement was for a lease for three years; and the question for consideration is whether it is an agreement within the provisions of Section 107, T.P. Act, which provides that a lease of immoveable property for any period exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument, and that all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered Instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Turning to Section 105 a lease is therein defined as follows:A lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property.2. In this case the lease was of immovable property for a term of three years : and it was contended on the defendant's behalf at the t...
Tag this Judgment!United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Krishna Rao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad411; 152Ind.Cas.965
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are the appellants. Plaintiff 1 is a share-holder and plaintiff 2, a policy holder in the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd., defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 9 are the Directors of the said company, of whom defendant 9, Mr. M.K. Srinivasan, is the Managing Director.2. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and. its directors from spending the money of the policy holders on the construction of a building on a site purchased by the company at Calcutta from out of the policy holders' Trust Fund.3. In September 1932, the United India Life Assurance Co, bought at Calcutta from the Calcutta Improvement Trust a vacant site valued at about Rs. 91,000 odd for the purpose of erecting a building on it. On 12th October 1932, a unanimous resolution was passed by all the directors of the company that a suitable building be constructed on the said plot at...
Tag this Judgment!R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad516
Beasley, C.J.1. These two appeals can be dealt with together. Although the facts are different, the main point for decision is common to both. The facts in each appeal may be briefly Stated. In O.S. No. 1 of 1931 the appellant brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, the respondent in this appeal. In that suit he asked for a declaration that he was wrongly dismissed, after he has been discharged on an invalid pension and for damages amounting to Rs. 9,900. His case was that he was discharged in October 1927 on an invalid pension and whilst a pension it was dismissed on February 1928 on the ground that he had been found guilty of misconduct before his retirement. The result of this was that his pension was withdrawn. His case was and is that under Rule 351 of the Civil Service Rules a pension can be withdrawn only if the pensioner bas been guilty of misconduct subsequent to his retirement. He next contends that his dismissal was contrary to the provision in Su...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponniah Lopes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.977; (1934)66MLJ572
Bardswell, J.1. The Petitioners were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Tuticorin of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code. For each of the convictions under Sections 147 and 323 each of them was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and for each of the convictions under Sections 149 and 325, Indian Penal Code, each of them was sentenced to twelve months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences were made to run concurrently. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences under Sections 149 and 325 to six months rigorous imprisonment, the sentences of course to run concurrently with those under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. An order to execute bonds for keeping the peace was set aside and with this we have nothing to do. The only point that has to be considered is whether there can be separate convictions and separate sentences for an offence punishable under Section 147 and one punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Manikkath Chinnu Amma's Daughter Ammalu Kutti Amma Vs. Ramunni Menon a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad508; 150Ind.Cas.952
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The 19th plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 26 and 37 are the descendants of Ammini Ammal of Palat Tarwad called Kizhekkepat Palat Tarwad. She had two daughters and three sons. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are her sons. The other defendants Nos. 4 to 26 and 37 are the descendants of her debeased daughter Lakshmikutty Amma. The 27th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 23 to 36 are the descendants of defendant No. 27; the 1st plaintiff is her second daughter and the other plaintiffs are the descendants of the 1st plaintiff. The suit was filed on October 11,1924, to recover arrears of maintenance from May 1, 1922, to September 30, 1921. The 1st plaintiff died on May 11, 1926, and the 1st defendant died when this appeal was pending in this Court. The karnavan the 1st defendant denied the plaintiffs' right to separate maintenance and set up an agreement under which the plaintiffs should be given only 365 paras of rice a year. There was disp...
Tag this Judgment!(Modalvalasam) Latchan Naidu and anr. Vs. Rama Krishna Ranga Rao Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad548
Cornish, J.1. The petitioners are defendants in a suit for the removal of a bund which they are alleged to have wrongfully raised so as to divert water flowing into the plaintiff's tank. The plaint was filed on 22nd July 1932, and with it a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the locality and to make a plan. Notice was ordered to go to the defendants and was made returnable on 23rd August 1932. The notice was actually served on defendants on 17th August 1932. In the meanwhile on 29th July 1932, a week after the first petition, the plaintiff put in another petition for the issue of a commission emergently, alleging that if the Court should pass orders after service of notice on the defendants it would cause delay, and that owing to the changes made by the rainfall the defendants would get the opportunity of including a certain channel in their lands.2. The Court granted the petition and issued a warrant to the Commissioner returnable on 3rd August 1932. The Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Modalavalasam Latchan Naidu and anr. Vs. Raja Saheb Maherban Dostan Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.941
Judgment.1. The petitioners are defendants in a suit for the removal of a bund which he is alleged to have wrongfully raised so as to divert water flowing into the plaintiff's tank. The plaint was filed on July 22, 1932, and with it a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the locality and to make a plan. Notice was ordered to go to the defendants and was made returnable on August 23, 1932. The notice was actually served on defendants on August 17, 1932.2. In the meanwhile on July 29, 1932, a week after the first petition, the plaintiff put in another petition for the issue of a commission emergency, alleging that if the Court should pass orders after service of notice on the defendants it would cause delay; and that owing to the changes made by the rainfall the defendants would get the opportunity of including a certain channel in their lands.3. The Court granted the petition and issued a warrant to the Commissioner returnable on August 3, 1932. The Commissioner com...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.R. Varadarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ420
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. It is not disputed that the petitioner was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate when the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated and as pointed out in Hamid Hasan v. Emperor : AIR1932All162 the section makes no reference to residence of the person proceeded against. He need only be within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction at the time the Magistrate takes action, vide Shama Char an Chakravarti v. Katu Mundal I.L.R. (1897) Cal. 344 and even a stay for a clay would justify proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide In re Krishnaji Pandurang Joglekar I.L.R. (1897) Bom. 32 . The place where the breach of the peace was apprehended is also within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction and there is no ground for quashing the proceedings. The petition is therefore dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »