Chennai Court September 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.
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Naraimha Rama Rao Vs. Chitrluri Venkataramay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.395
1. The question which these criminal revision petitions raises is as to the admissibility of certain statements made by the complainant in an Income tax return. The case is in the stage of a preliminary enquiry, and if committed will eventually be heard by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances it has been urged upon us by the complainant that we should not interfere with the occur of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate admitting the evidence. We believe it to be very unusual for this Court to hold up a preliminary enquiry while it adjudicates upon an order of this kind. Indeed, only one reported case, a recent one decided by Burn, J., in In re Ponnusami Chetty : (1933)64MLJ519 has been brought to our notice in which a question of the admissibility of evidence at this stage has been entertained, and it does not appear that any objection, such as is raised now, was preferred. We are influenced by the consideration that if the case is committed for trial, it will rest upon the tria...
In Re: Periaswami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.696
Pandrang Row, J.1. The two appellants in this appeal have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, the 1st appellant of an offence punishable under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, and the 2nd appellant of murder. The 1st appellant received a sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment while the 2nd appellant was sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.2. The case arose out of the discovery of the dead body of one Ramasami Thevan, a bachelor of about 23 years, in the early morning of October 8, in the itteri near the field belonging to witness Royappa Goundan. He reported the discovery of the dead body, which had numerous injuries, to the village Munsif who reported the matter to the Police and the Magistrate. The inquest was held on Sunday night, the October 8, and the only eye-witness examined at the inquest, was not examined as a witness for the prosecution. The next day, however, during the investigation the Sub-Inspector was ab...
Potta Reddi Vs. Karuppa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad150; 155Ind.Cas.1013; (1935)68MLJ48
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The decree-holder in the case filed an E.P. No. 63 of 1931 to bring the properties to sale. The sale was posted to 16th December, 1931 and by consent of parties adjourned to 16th March, 1932. The judgment-debtors in spite of notice took no part in the sale proclamation and came forward objecting to the property being sold in certain lots and other matters of this sort. By a consent order the sale was adjourned to 29th June, 1932. The order on the petition runs as follows:This is not pressed. Sale adjourned. Objection to sale proclamation given up.2. This order is dated 23rd March, 1932. The sale was again adjourned to 28th September, 1932, and even afterwards adjourned from day to day. An application for adjournment is put in on 5th October, 1932 and refused. The sale was concluded on 10th October, 1932. An application to set aside the sale was put in under Order 21, Rule 90, in which the objections to the sale application given up on a former occasion are repeated...
K.P. Raman Menon Vs. the Malabar Forest and Rubber Company, Limited, i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad163; (1935)68MLJ269
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was dismissed in the trial Court and his appeal to the District Court was also dismissed.2. The appellant by Ex. E, a lease deed, dated the 4th February, 1924, leased the suit properties to one Nilkanath Narayan Khale for a term of 75 years. It was admitted during the trial and in the lower Appellate Court and here that Khale was a benamidar for the Malabar Forest and Rubber Company, Limited. The High Court of Bombay on the 8th July, 1926, made an order for the compulsory winding up of that company on a petition, dated the 12th May, 1926, presented by Messrs. Sabnis & Co., the Managing Agents of the Company to whom Khale had assigned his rights under the lease, and Mr. Moos was appointed the Official Liquidator of the Company and represents them here as the first respondent. The point for consideration is whether there has been a forfeiture of the lease giving the appellant the right of re-entry as claime...
Shamugathammal Vs. Gomathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad58; 152Ind.Cas.1070
King, J.1. The question at issue in this appeal is the right of succession to the property of a dancing girl of Palamcottah named Amirthammal who died issueless in 1920. Amirthammal had four sisters of whom three still survive and were impleaded in this suit as defendants 1, 2 and 3. Plaintiff is the daughter of the other sister who had predeceased Amirthammal. Plaintiff claims that she is the sole heir of Amirthammal and that her aunts are disqualified for the following reasons; defendant 1, because she has been adopted by another dancing girl, and defendants 2 and 3 because they are married women who do not practise the profession of the dancing girl caste. Plaintiff alleges that by the customary law of the caste such married women are precluded from the succession. Plaintiff was given a decree by the Sub-Judge of Tuticorin but her suit was dismissed on appeal by the District Judge of Tinnevelly and she now comes to us in Second Appeal. Various questions of fact were disputed in the ...
Minor Munuswami Mudaliar, Vs. Govindaraja Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ91
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The first defendant executed a deed of mortgage (Ex. A), dated 30th October, 1913, for Rs. 3,515 and odd in favour of Subbaraya Mudaliar and Ekambara Mudaliar. The two mortgagees afterwards died each leaving a minor son. The mortgagor afterwards sold half of the mortgaged property to the fourth defendant under Ex. I, dated 27th March, 1916. The amount of consideration for sale was paid to the mortgagees. The suit is now brought for the balance due on the mortgage. But the property sold under Ex. I is also sought to be sold along with the other property. The fourth defendant in his statement pleaded that some time before the sale he and the first defendant went to the sons of the original mortgagees who were at that time minors represented by mothers as their guardians and offered to pay them half the mortgage amount then due to them in consideration of their accepting it in full Satisfaction of their claim against ...
V.S. Munuswami Mudaliar Vs. Kandaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad5
1. We think that the lower Court was right in deciding that the plaintiff was personally liable for the refund of the costs, and that they could be recovered in restitution by his arrest or attachment of his property, whatever remedy lay against the assets of the institution. Where a plaintiff who sues as a trustee incurs a liability to costs, the rule undoubtedly is that it is in the first instance a personal liability unless he obtains an order from the Court that the costs are to come out of the estate. The position, particularly as it affects a trustee in bankruptcy under the English law has been discussed by one of us in Panchakshari v. Venkataratnam 1934 Mad. 430. That was the case of a defendant against whom an order for costs had been made, but it can make no difference to the principle to be applied : See also Harikishan Das v. Parshotamnand Gir 1934 All. 793. In the present case the original order was that the respondent (defendant 5) should pay appellant (plaintiff) his cost...
Munuswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Govindaraja Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad113; 153Ind.Cas.668
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: Defendant 1 executed a deed of mortgage (Ex. A), dated 30th October 1913, for Rs. 3,515 odd in favour of Subbaraya Mudaliar and Ekambara Mudaliar. The two mortgagees afterwards died each leaving a minor son. The mortgagor afterwards sold of the mortgaged property to defendant 4 under Ex. 1, dated 27th March 1916. The amount of consideration for sale was paid to the mortgagees. The suit is now brought for the balance due on the mortgage. But the property sold under Ex. 1 is also sought to be sold along with the other property. Defendant 4 in his statement pleaded that some time before the sale he and defendant 1 went to the sons of the original mortgagees who were at that time minors represented by mothers as their guardians and offered to pay them half the mortgage amount then due to thorn in consideration of their accepting it in full in full satisfaction of their claim against the properties intended to be purcha...
C. Kunhamutty Vs. Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad29; (1935)68MLJ107
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question in both the Lower Courts was whether two documents (Exs. A and B) created a valid wakf. The trial Judge (the District Munsif) held on the authority of Kaleloola Sahib v. Nuseerudeen Sahib I.L.R.(1894) 18 Mad. 201 : M.L.J. 40 by which case he felt himself bound, that the dedication which Exs. A and B evidence, namely, of properties the income of which is to be devoted to reading the Koran at a private tomb is invalid under the Muhammadan Law; and unless it had been shown that the decision referred to above had been expressly or impliedly overruled or dissented from in later decisions of the Madras High Court, the learned District Munsif was perfectly correct in accepting that position as he states that his attention was not drawn to any such decision. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has relied upon the opinion expressed by Mr. Ameer Ali in his work on Muhammadan Law, Vol. I, page 351, where the correctness of Kaleloola Sahib ...
G.R. Venkatarama Sastriar Vs. the Official Receiver, Representing the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ357
Curgenven, J.1. The appellant in these two appeals is a creditor in an insolvency petition in which one G.S. Venkata-ramana Aiyar was adjudicated insolvent. The appellant's debt related to a promissory note of which the insolvent and another were the endorsees. No doubt because the insolvent was not alone concerned, the appellant applied for leave to sue him together with the other party to the endorsed note and obtained an order in the following terms:The Official Receiver reports that leave may be granted. I therefore grant leave to sue the insolvent also with the condition that the money if any realised from the insolvent must be handed over to the Receiver for distribution. The petitioner can only rank as an ordinary creditor and share with others in case he gets a decree against the insolvent and realises from him.2. The appellant accordingly brought a suit against the insolvent and his five undivided sons, and against the other endorsee to-the note and his son, and obtained a dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »