Chennai Court August 1934 Judgments
Achayi and anr. Vs. Parameswaran Namboodiripad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad92; 153Ind.Cas.249; (1935)68MLJ53
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The point to be decided in this second appeal is one which arises under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The appellants who are two sisters applied for the renewal of a kanam claiming to be kanamdars within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The facts are that the elder brother of the appellants got a renewal of the kanam in 1917 in his name. The first respondent filed a suit against him and evicted him and the Malabar Tenancy Act does not apply to his case as the suit against him was filed on the 17th July, 1929.. The. appellants then claimed to be kanamdars, their case being that they were jointly entitled with their brother to the kanam amount. The District Munsif took no evidence upon this point being of the opinion that upon an interpretation of the Act the appellants were not kanamdars; and the lower Appellate Court took the same view. The appellants' contention is that evidence should have been taken which would show that they were jointly e...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Pattar (insane) and ors. Vs. K. Mankayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad775; 160Ind.Cas.624; (1935)69MLJ410
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who sued in the lower Court for the recovery of certain properties or in the alternative, for partition. The first plaintiff has admittedly been a lunatic since 1920. The second plaintiff is his son, born in March, 1924. The third plaintiff is another son, born pending the suit. The first plaintiff's father (Krishna Josier) died on the 26th of September, 1923, leaving him surviving (besides the first plaintiff) two daughters who are defendants 1 and 2 in the case. The third and fourth defendants respectively are their husbands.2. In view of first plaintiff's unfortunate condition, Krishna Josier, who was possessed of a decent extent of property, was naturally anxious to make some satisfactory arrangement for the management of his property after his death. His first attempt in this direction was Ex. A a will dated 6th of July, 1920. The first plaintiff had then an infant son about a year old, and the scheme of Ex. A is based on th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Belli Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.256; (1935)68MLJ330
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. There were two societies at Aravangadu the co-operative Stores Society and the Co-operative Credit Society. The secretary of each society was charged with offences under Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. They were tried separately and one was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the other to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment with fines. Both appealed to the Sessions Judge. He considered that they should have been charged under Section 120-B, read with Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code, and ordered them to be committed to the Sessions by the Joint Magistrate on the amended charge. The Joint Magistrate asked the accused if they wished to cross-examine the witnesses after the amended charge and let in evidence. They did not do so and they were committed to the Sessions. Two petitions have been filed, one against the order of the learned Sessions Judge and the other against the commitment.2. It is clear that the accused cannot be comm...
Tag this Judgment!Pachipenta Lakshmi Naidu Vs. Somahanti Gunnamma Alias Chinnammi and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad101; (1935)68MLJ470
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the ninth defendant, a puisne mortgagee, against the decree for sale passed in a prior mortgagee's suit. The prior mortgagee had two mortgages in his favour, Ex. A, a usufructuary mortgage of 1st September, 1891 and Ex. B, a simple mortgage of 4th September, 1897. In respect of Ex. A, the appellant contends that on its true construction, the mortgagee is bound to account for all the income from the properties of which he was put in possession, subject to a deduction of interest at 9 per cent, per annum on the mortgage amount and one or two other items of charges mentioned in the document. He insists that if accounts are taken on this footing it would be found that the mortgagee has realised the whole amount due to him under the mortgages. With reference to Ex. B, the appellant raises a plea of limitation. Incidentally, his learned Counsel also suggested the possibility of a claim for subrogation in respect of a fraction of the amount included in...
Tag this Judgment!Alapati Nagamma Vs. Alapati Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ191
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit under appeal to recover possession of a house to which she claimed to be entitled under a gift deed executed by the second defendant the mother of the plaintiff's late husband Subbayya in favour of Subbayya and the plaintiff jointly. The suit was contested upon various grounds, the only one with which we are here concerned being that the gift deed was not validly attested. The gift deed purports to have been attested by five persons, two of whom have signed their names and three have made their marks. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the writer of the document and the Sub-Registrar who registered it were attestors also. Only one of the two signatories could be traced and he was P.W. 7. The District Judge found that he attested the document and it must therefore be accepted that the gift deed was attested by at least one attestor. The District Judge has further found that one of the marksmen (P.W. 8) d...
Tag this Judgment!Muthia Chettiar Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad21; 153Ind.Cas.452
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner was defendant in a suit in the Devakottai Sub-Court. His petition is for the revision of an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge dismissing his application for issue of a Commission for the examination of a witness in Burma. The suit was instituted on 19th August 1932. The date of first hearing was 24th February 1933, and on that occasion issues were framed. The case was posted for trial on 29th August 1933. On 11th August 1.933, that is to say, 18 days before the day fixed for trial, the petitioner applied to the Court to issue a commission. The learned Subordinate Judge said that the issue of a commission at that stage would mean a further adjournment of the suit indefinitely for one months. He was also of opinion that the excuse offered by the petitioner for not having made his application earlier could not be accepted. Now it is clear under Rule 57, Civil Rules of Practice, that the proper time for making an application for a commission is the date...
Tag this Judgment!(Mullapudi) Rangayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad3
ORDERWalsh, J.1. I have been shown no authority for the petitioner's contention that a lawful entry into one part of the railway as in this case of a passanger with a ticket into the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line, as in this case. None of the cases quoted Emperor v. Lodai 1927 All. 646, Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 1918 Nag. 49 or Durrel, L.S. v. Kumud Kaula 1919 Cal. 718 supported this contention. If it were correct, all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket holders can enter first class compartments or first class waiting rooms, while all ticket-holders can get into the single boxes, engine driver's cabin and guard vans. The absurdity of these results shows that lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part of a railway lawful. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Panaganti Venkatarenga Rayanim Gar Vs. Sree Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad118; 166Ind.Cas.979
Curgenven, J.1. The order under appeal directs that execution will proceed under a mortgage decree. There was a preliminary decree passed in the ordinary course and the parties then by consent tiled a draft of a decree under which this order for execution was passed. The respondent has taken the preliminary objection that no appeal will lie from the order. The appellant pleads that he is not at the moment in a position to meet this point and we think that in view of the order which we propose to pass it is unnecessary for us to decide it.2. The only question which the appeal raises is as to the effect to be given to a passage in the decree with regard to the decree-holder's right to apply for sale. The decree provides that the mortgaged property should be delivered to the mortgagee on or before 1st July 1929 and that the decree-holder should enjoy it in lieu of subsequent interest and that the judgment-debtors should have a right to redelivery on condition of paying the full amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mullapudi Rangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.615
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. I have been shown no authority for the petitioner's contention that a lawful entry on to one part of the railway, as in this case of a passenger with a ticket on to the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line as in this case.2. None of the cases quoted Emperor v. Lodai : AIR1927All646 , Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 48 Ind. Cas. 898 : 48 Ind. Cas. 896 and Kumud Kanta Chakrabarty v. Emperor 47 Ind. Cas. 74 : 22 CWN 575 : 19 Cri. LJ 878 supports this contention.3. If it were correct all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket-holder can enter 1st class compartment or 1st class waiting room while all ticket-holders can get into the signal boxes, engine driver's cabin and guard vans. The absurdity of these results shows that lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part of a railway lawful. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Vanniar Vs. Karumbayiram Periyari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ534
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. The Petitioner and others were accused before the Village Panchayat Court, Narayanamangalam, Tanjore District, and convicted of an offence. A revision petition was filed in the Court of the Joint Meagistrate, Negapatam, in CM.P. No. 43 of 1932, under Section 76 (8) of the Madras Village Courts Act. The Court found that the Bench had no legal existence at the time and hence no jurisdiction. It set aside the conviction and directed the fines paid to be refunded. On the same facts an identical complaint was filed before the same Panchayat Court in C.C. No. 2 of 1932. The Petitioner put in a petition to the Sub-Magistrate, Kodavasal, to stop further proceedings and discharge the accused on the ground that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code barred a new trial on the Isame facts with regard to the same occurrence.2. The Court held there was no bar and against this order the present Revision Petition is filed. The argument for the Petitioner is that under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »