Chennai Court January 1934 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.
(Kanneganti) Ramamanemma Vs. (Kanneganti) Basavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad558
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the wife of the defendant. She brought a suit alleging that she got certain lands from her father-in-law under a gift deed, that she has been in possession and enjoyment of that land-till the end of March 1929, and that she had leased out the said land, the last of the registered deeds being Ex. F, a registered kabulrat for ten years dated 5th June 1929. She stated in her plaint that her tenants on 29th June 1929 sent; her a registered postcard Ex. G which-reached the plaintiff on 2nd July 1929 saying that they do not find it suitable to carry on cultivation and gave up possession of the land. They also said' in Ex. G that the plaintiff might get the lands cultivated as it pleased her. In para. 5 of the plaint she states:Then the plaintiff sent her brother Movva Rammayya to Tenali and Guntur on 3rd July 1929 to take the letter and get legal advice. In the meanwhile the defendant wrongfully entered upon the suit land without the plaintiff'...
Sivagnanathammal Vs. S.V. Nallaperumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad165; 155Ind.Cas.783
ORDER11. In case defendant 2 elects to accept the value given by the plaintiff to the salt pans, the question whether plaintiff should be compensated to the extent of Rs. 728 as the value of 11 pans confiscated by Government on account of the alleged obstruction of defendants will be considered and decided by the Court below and provided for in the final decree....
Krishnaswami Ayya Vs. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.1005
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: One Ramaji Bavaji Pandit a Mahratta Brahman of Tanjore died on August 10, 1858. Before his death he had adopted a son Bavaji Ramji Pandit whose son is the present plaintiff. He also left two widows Kamakshi Boyee and Thulja Boyee. He had also executed a will dated August 6, 1858 (Ex. V) making various dispositions of his property. After giving certain properties to his relations, half of the remaining properties he devised, to his two widows who 'shall be entitled to and take the same.' By an arrangement in the year 1860 between the two widows Thulji Boyee got the suit house belonging to the deceased. A creditor of the widows filed 0. Section No. 275 of 1872 against them for the recovery of a debt contracted by them after their husband's death. A decree was obtained and in Court auction in execution of the decree the house was sold and purchased by the decree-holder and one Krishnaji Kottadya. They sold their right...
Manickam Vs. Poongavanammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad323; (1934)66MLJ543
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiya, J.1. Poongavanammal applied to the Presidency Magistrate's Court, Egmore, for maintenance from Manickam under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She alleged that she was an Adi Dravida and that she was married to the counter-petitioner--Manickam--who is a Naidu. There was a child of the marriage, and on the allegation that she was Manickam's legally married wife, she claimed maintenance for herself and for her child on the ground that the counter-petitioner Manickam had neglected her and refused to maintain her and the child.2. The counter-petitioner--Manickam--admitted the parentage of the child and stated that he was prepared to give maintenance to it; but he refused to give any maintenance to the complainant--Poongavanammal--on the ground that she was not his wedded wife but only his concubine. The learned Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate recorded evidence of the six witnesses examined on the side of the complainant and of the two examined ...
In Re: Ratnam Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1934
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ318
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Chittoor of an offence punishable under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The case originally came before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chittoor who discharged the accused. The District Magistrate thereupon took the case up on his own motion under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code and after notice to the accused decided that a further enquiry should be held and that that enquiry should be held by himself. After the enquiry he framed a charge against the accused and convicted him. It has not been said that there was anything improper in the action of the District Magistrate in directing the further enquiry. But Mr. Connell has argued that the District Magistrate should have done no more than frame a charge against the accused and then should have had the case tried by...
In Re: Yedama Subbaramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ408
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 225-B and 353, I.P.C. and the sentences therefor must be set aside. The warrant of arrest, the execution of which was resisted by the petitioner, is clearly an illegal one. The warrant of arrest was signed by the Deputy Nazir, an officer who had not been empowered legally or given any lawful authority to sign warrants, and the fact that it had been the practice for a considerable time for such warrants to be signed by the Deputy Nazir cannot make the signing of them by that officer legal in the absence of due authorisation. The petitioner who has been admitted to bail is acquitted and set at liberty and his bail bond will be discharged....
(Kaveripakkam) Bangarammal Vs. Lydia Kent and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad605; 152Ind.Cas.546
Curgenven, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits tried together by the City Civil Judge. The advisability of trying O.S. No. 555 of 1929 (C.C.C.A. No. 18 of 1931) with the other two suits is open to question, but we propose to record our findings upon the issues which it raises quite separately. Certain facts may however be stated as common to the three cases.2. We are concerned with a family of Indian Christians composed of Richard and Caroline Kent, husband and wife, and two daughters Sarah (Mrs. Borgonah) and Lydia. Richard Kent, who was an Inspector on the railway, owned a house, No. 6, Salai Street, Vepery, Madras, in part of which he was living up to the time of his death. The house consisted of two distinct portions, a front part and a rear part, and these figure separately in the later transactions. In 1913 Richard Kent executed two successive mortgages of the whole property to a Marwari Sowcar named Birchand for sums of Ra. 500 and Rupees 100 respectively. In 1914,...
(Yedama) Subbaramiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad206
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 325-B and 353, I. P. C. and the sentences therefor must be set aside. The warrant o arrest the execution of which was resisted by the petitioner is clearly an illegal one. The warrant of arrest was signed by the Deputy Nazir an officer who had not been empowered legally or given any lawful authority to sign warrants, and the fact that it had been the practice for a considerable time for such warrants to be signed by the Deputy Nazir cannot make the signing of them by that officer legal in the absence of due authorization. The petitioner who has been admitted to bail is acquitted and set at liberty and his bail bond will be discharged....
Samuel and ors. Vs. Annammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad310; (1934)66MLJ279
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The only point to be decided is, whether the plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of Moses. Pakkiam, the plaintiff's mother, was married to Moses about 1870, but on 2nd March, 1880, there was a deed of separation, Ex. I. It recites that owing to want of harmony between the husband and the wife, they decided to separate, the wife receiving, according to the caste custom, a sum of money, and she goes on to declare that she will in future have no concern either with Moses or with his property. Pakkiam died in 1922 and Moses in June, 1923; the suit was brought in December, 1923, and on the date of its institution, the plaintiff, who was born in 1883, was about 40 years old. Both the Lower Courts have held that the plaintiff is the daughter of Moses and awarded her a share in his property. The parties are Indian Christians, and I may observe that the plaintiff's legitimacy is disputed by all the relations of Moses impleaded as defendants (twelve in number), including ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›