Chennai Court October 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.
C.S. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. Palaniswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad319; 159Ind.Cas.692
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This application is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who concedes that the petitioner must be deemed to have acted in his official capacity as a Sub-Magistrate when the acts alleged against him in the complaint were committed. It is abundantly clear that this must have been the case. The Sub-Magistrate went to the spot at the request of the Receiver appointed by the Court as the Sub-Inspector of Police was away and the Sub-Magistrate took a small Police force with him for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace which was apprehended. It follows that what he did or is said to have done after reaching the place where the breach of the peace was feared was done in his official capacity as a Magistrate and in the performance of what he considered to be his duty as a Magistrate. Even if he exceeded his powers and even if he thereby committed any offence, no complaint in respect of any such offence, could be entertained by toy Court without the san...
Mowlavi Haji Muhammad Abdul Baqi Vs. Kanuru Sundararamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.408
1. The appellant by a letter (Ex. A) dated October 7, 1930, undertook to be surety for the payment of a decree-debt due by his brother. The letter recited that the decree-holder had agreed not to execute his decree against the brother on the representation that it would be fully satisfied before the end of April 1931, and it concluded with these words:If we fail to so pay the amount to you, not only will my younger brother be liable therefor, but you can take proceedings against our properties and against us and we shall not raise any objection thereto.2. It is clear from the terms of Ex. A that the appellant had made himself personally liable to the decree-holder as surety for the payment of the decree against his brother. The learned Subordinate Judge has ordered execution to issue against the appellant as surety, and it is from this order that he has appealed. The question turns upon the construction of Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code, of which the material portion runs as f...
Athimannil Muhammad Vs. the Malabar District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad213; 155Ind.Cas.291; (1935)68MLJ125
1. We have heard arguments, on this appeal, only on the question raised by issue No. 2, namely, whether the suit is barred under Section 225(3) of the Madras Local Boards Act, as it has admittedly been instituted more than six months after the accrual of the alleged cause of action. As we agree with the lower Court in its conclusion on this point, it is unnecessary to deal with the other issues arising in this case.2. The plaintiff filed this suit, claiming damages from the District Board of South Malabar, on the ground that by order, dated 31st of March, 1925, the President improperly cancelled a contract with the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff had been given the lease, for one year, of the tolls in certain places in the Malabar District. The material facts are, that, pursuant to an invitation of tenders, the plaintiff made a tender on the 23rd of March, 1925, which was accepted by the Vice-President, during the President's absence, on the 24th of March. The President seems to have l...
Goli Ammiraju Vs. Goli Kondalarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad465; (1935)68MLJ255
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendants are members of a joint Hindu family. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the family properties and final decree was passed by the District Munsif awarding the plaintiff a certain share in the properties. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the District Munsif in which he raised two main objections, namely, that there was no proper division of the properties and that necessary provision has not been made in regard to channels and water rights. Subsequent to the passing of the final decree and before the filing of the appeal the plaintiff took possession of the plots allotted to him under the decree. Before the appeal was heard an application was filed by the defendants praying that the Court should dismiss the appeal summarily on the ground that the plaintiff has taken possession of the share allotted to him and that having thus taken...
Edward Philbert Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad258
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. Two points are raised in this-petition, viz., that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was wrong in refusing to allow the accused to have the prosecution witnesses re-summoned and re-cross-examined after the framing of the charge, and (2) that a certain order passed by this Court directing the lower Court to grant copies of the statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution to the appellant under Section 162, Criminal P.C., has not been obeyed.2. As regards the first point the facts of the case are that the Magistrate commenced the trial of the case after a charge had been framed by his predecessor in office whereupon the accused claimed to exercise the right conferred upon him by the first part of Section 350, Criminal P.C., which gives him the right of demanding a fresh examination and cross-examination of witnesses. This demand was satisfied by the Magistrate by re-summoning the witnesses and re-hearing the evidence. What is now contended on behalf of the p...
In Re: Edward Philbert
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.663
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. Two points raised in tins petition, viz., that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was wrong in refusing to allow the accused to have the prosecution witnesses re-summoned and re-cross-examined after the framing of the charge, and (2) that a certain order passed by this Court directing the lower Court to grant copies of the statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution to the appellant under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been obeyed.2. As regards the first point the facts of the case are that the Magistrate commenced the trial of the case after a charge had been framed by his predecessor-in-office whereupon the accused claimed to exercise the right conferred upon him by the 1st part of Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gives him the right of demanding a fresh examination and cross-examination of witnesses, This demand was satisfied by the Magistrate by re-summoning the witnesses and re-hearing the evidence. What is now cont...
Lakshmana Chettiar by Receiver A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Muth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad145; 155Ind.Cas.574; (1935)68MLJ104
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant, in O.S. No. 71 of 1925 on a promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant. In execution of that decree he attached certain properties which formed the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff being the 2nd defendant's minor younger brother. The plaintiff intervened with a. claim petition and contended that his share of the joint family properties should not be attached in execution. As that petition was dismissed he has filed the present suit for a declaration under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff rested his case on several grounds. One contention of his was that he and the 2nd defendant were divided in status and that the 2nd defendant could not have represented him at all. Another contention was that the promissory note was not executed for any purposes binding upon him and therefore his share could not be proceeded against. He also relied on th...
Pateel Siddalingana Gowd Vs. Tatana Gowdra Bhimana Gowd and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad731; (1935)68MLJ487
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs are members of a joint Hindu family. The defendant held a mortgage over certain joint family properties but that mortgage had been executed only by a step-brother of the plaintiffs. In execution of the decree obtained on that mortgage the defendant himself became the purchaser of the properties, but as the plaintiffs and another deceased brother of theirs were not parties even to the suit on the mortgage, they resisted the defendant when he attempted to take possession as execution purchaser. The Court ordered their obstruction to be removed by an order, dated 4th April, 1918; and on the 5th April, the plaintiffs filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code, for a mere declaration. As shortly thereafter, the defendant took possession, that plaint was amended by the addition of a prayer for possession, but it did not occur to anybody to add a prayer for future ...
S. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Madras Drug Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad298; 159Ind.Cas.490
Beasley, C.J.1. This matter came up before the Pull Bench of the Court of Small Causes upon an order made by the Registrar of the Court under Section 52(2), Civil P.C. It was argued before the Pull Bench that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Section 35, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, says:The registrar may receive applications for the execution of decrees of any value passed by the Court and may commit and discharge judgment-debtors and make any order in respect thereof which a Judge of the Court may make under this Act.The marginal note to that section is:Registrar may execute all decrees with the same powers as a Judge.2. It is admitted here by the petitioner that a Judge would have power to make .the order under Section 52(2), 'Civil P. C, that is, the order in question here. This is clearly a proceeding in execution. That being so, the section is perfectly clear and unambiguous. The Registrar has exactly the same powers as the Judge and exercises these p...
M.R.R.M.M.R. Veerappa Chetty Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad686
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J., who had an application before him made in the insolvency of a firm known as the A. R. A. R. S. M. Firm. The application was by one M. R. R. M. M. R. Veerappa Chettiar to be admitted to proof in the insolvency in the sum of Rs. 34,244-15-6 as the Vicharanaidar or the managing treasurer under the Eangoon Nagarathars or trustees of a Chatram known as the Kasi Nagara Chatram. The application was rejected. Hence this appeal. The chatram in question had been established by the Calcutta Nagarathars, these persons being - it is alleged by the applicant who is the appellant here - Nattukottai Chetty firms carrying on business in Calcutta. The funds for the chatram were derived in part from mahimai which is a collection made by the firms from all constituents who go to them for cashing bills. The rest of the funds are supplied by strangers to the Nattukottai Chetty firms and mostly take the shape of hundies. These hundies are given ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »