Chennai Court April 1933 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.
Popuri Murahari Brahma Sastri Alias Sreerama Sarma Being Minor by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ577
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the alleged adoption of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant is not true or valid.2. One Popoori Ramakrishnayya died in or about 1900. The plaintiff is his daughter by his first wife. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, Ramakrishnayya married the 2nd defendant. At his death she had not attained puberty. Defendants 3 and 4 are the divided brothers of the deceased Ramakrishnayya and his nearest gnatis. 1st defendant is the son of the 4th defendant. On 10th July, 1923, the 2nd defendant sent a registered post card, Ex. III, to the 3rd defendant requesting him to give her written authority to adopt. This letter was refused by him. On 26th August, 1923, she sent another registered post card Ex. IV to the 3rd defendant making the same request. This was also refused. On 20th September, 1923, the registered post card Ex. V was sent by her pleade...
(Popuri) Murahari Brahma Sastri and anr. Vs. Chilikuri Sumitramma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad191
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the allegd adoption of defendant 1 by defendant 2 is not true or valid. One Popoori Ramakrishnayya died in or about 1900. The plaintiff is his daughter by his first wife. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, Ramakrishnayya married defendant 2. At his death she had not attained puberty. Defendants 3 and 4 are the divided brothers of the deceased Ramakrishnayya and his nearest gnatis. Defendant 1 is the son of defendant 4. On 10th July 1923 defendant 2 sent a registered post card Ex. 3 to defendant 3 requesting him to give her written authority to adopt. This letter was refused by him. On 26th August 1923 she sent another registered post card Ex. 4 to defendant 3 making the same request. This was also refused. On 20th September 1923 the registered post card Ex. 5 was sent by her pleader making the same request. This was also refused by defend...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Malaipati Gurappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad728; 145Ind.Cas.659; (1933)65MLJ405
Burn, J.1. The respondent to this appeal was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Tiruttani of an offence punishable under Section 212, Indian Penal Code, for harbouring a person who had committed theft. That Magistrate, not being empowered to take action under Section 562(1), Criminal Procedure Code, submitted the proceedings to the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chandragiri. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate without giving notice to anybody found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him. The Government is appealing against this acquittal.2. The case has not been argued before us on the merits but merely with reference to the powers of a Magistrate under Section 380, Criminal Procedure Code. When a case is referred, as was this case, to a Magistrate under the proviso to Section 562(1), Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate to whom it is referred has to dispose of the case in the manner provided by Section 380, and under Section 380 such Magistrate may pass such sente...
In Re: Santhanakrishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.46; (1933)65MLJ837
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioner (accused) was convicted of an offence under Section 7(1)(c) of the Land Customs Act for having with him 82 blocks of silver weighing about 15,000 tolas smuggled from Karaikal in French territory without a permit. The motor car in which this accused and another (who has been acquitted) were travelling was stopped by the Land Customs Inspector (P.W. 1) at the level-crossing gate near Needamangalam on the Needamangalam-Tanjore road at about 12-30 A.M. in the early morning of 3rd September, 1932. The accused was also wearing some silk cloths but the latter were found to be his personal wearing apparel. He was not convicted with regard to them. The accused appealed with regard to this conviction as to smuggling silver and the conviction was confirmed. This revision petition is put in against that conviction. Certain admitted facts may be noted. It is not the case for the prosecution that this silver had come direct that night from Karaikal. The Custo...
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu Vicharna Kartha and the Proprietor of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.1066; (1935)68MLJ324
Burn, J.1. We do not think that the authority of Paramaswamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Nachiar Ammal I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 and Ramaswamy Goundan v. Kali Goundan I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 has been in any way affected by the Full Bench in Raghunadha Patro v. Govinda Patro : (1928)55MLJ798 or by the decision of a larger Full Bench in Raja of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 . The two Full Bench decisions were in cases in which the High Court considered the question of revising proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act which deals with Survey Settlement and Record of Rights. The basis of the decision in the case of the Raja of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 was that in exercising their functions under Chapter XI, the Revenue Authorities were not acting as Courts. But in disposing of suits for arrears of rent the Revenue Officers do act as Courts (Section 189 of the Act), and their decrees in such suits ar...
S.P.S.R. Subramania Ayyar Vs. C. Bomer Cooty Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad870
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from an order expressly made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin under Order 11, Rule 21, Sch. 1, Civil P.C., dismissing his suit for want of prosecution on the ground that the plaintiff had contumaciously refused to produce certain documents which he had been ordered to produce. From the terms of the Judge's order as well as from the previous orders for production which are on the record, there is no doubt that those orders were passed under Order 11, Rule 14 and that respondent-defendant 1 applied for orders under that provision. This being so, it would be enough to dispose of this appeal to say that the learned Judge had no authority to dismiss the plaintiff's suit for disobedience of an order under Order 11, Rule 14. That was decided so far as this Court is concerned in Subbayyar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1924 Mad 582 which followed a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lyallpur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chandra Gur Sahai Cotton Mi...
S.P.S.R. Subramania Ayyar Vs. C. Oomer Cotty Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1149
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from an order expressly made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin under Order XI, Rule 21, Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code, dismissing his suit for want of prosecution on the ground that the, plaintiff had contumaciously refused to produce certain documents which he had been ordered to produce. From the terms of the Judge's order as well as from the previous order for production which are on the record there is no doubt that those orders were passed under Order XI, Rule 14 and that the respondent 1st defendant applied for orders under that provision. This being so, it would be enough to dispose of this appeal to say that the learned Judge had no authority to dismiss the plaintiff's suit for disobedience of an order under Order XI, Rule 14. That was decided so far as this Court is concerned in Sithamalli Subhayyar v. Ramanathan Chettiar 77 Ind. Cas. 766 : 46 M.L.J. 350 : 19 L.W. 355 : (1924) M.W.N. 340 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad 582 which foll...
In Re: Baluchami Pillai Alias Kuthalalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ723
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. The accused is charged with causing grievous hurt to P.W. 1 and hurt to P.W. 2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted him of both these offences but without framing any fresh charge found him guilty of affray under Section 160, Indian Penal Code. It is contended that this conviction is illegal both because there is no evidence to establish such a charge and secondly because the accused could not be convicted on such a charge without a fresh charge being framed.2. With regard to the first point the prosecution case briefly was that the accused taxed P. W. 3 with saying that he suspected him of breaking an idol and the accused said he would not let him go until he proved it. In the course of argument accused caught hold of P.W. 3 and threw him on to the ground. Two friends of the accused, who have not been charged, assisted the accused and one of them beat P.W. 3 with his belt. P.W. 2 came from his house about 20 feet away and separated the accused and...
Susai Lazar Villavaraya Vs. M. Ramaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad710; 145Ind.Cas.228
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Some of the co-owners transferred their rights in certain properties in favour of the plaintiff. They also purported to transfer their right to the past profits. Defendant 1 resists the claim to the profits on the ground that under Section 6(e), T.P. Act, a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. In the first place, was what was transferred a mere right to sue? The word 'mere' in the section is not without significance and in my opinion implies that the transferee has acquired no interest other than a bare right to sue. But in this case not only was the right to the profits assigned, but the property itself was transferred. Secondly, defendant 1's contention is that the transfer was of mesne profits and is therefore invalid. It is unnecessary to inquire whether mesne profits can be assigned or not. The expression 'mesne profits' connotes that the defendant is in wrongful possession: vide Section 2(12) Civil P.C., but it is well settled that the receipt of profit...
Mutyala Virayya Vs. Mahabub Sur Fraja Vantu Rajah Parthasarathi Appa R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad690; (1933)65MLJ417
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who appeals, sued upon a promissory note executed by one Narayya Appa Rao. Narayya Appa Rao died and the suit was brought against his father, the 1st defendant, and his sons, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, these three defendants forming a Hindu coparcenary. The question arose whether each and every one of these defendants could be made liable in respect of their shares of the family property. The learned Subordinate Judge tried the question whether the debt was borrowed by Narayya Appa Rao in his capacity as family manager and for family necessity, and answered it in the negative. He further came to the conclusion that the debt was not contracted for any illegal or immoral purpose, and the findings upon these issues have not been controverted before us. Notwithstanding the finding upon the latter issue, the learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the shares of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, i.e., the sons of the executant of the note, are not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »