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.
Paniyil Kalliani Amma's Thavazhi Karnavan Damodaran Nair Vs. Valvor Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad190; 157Ind.Cas.1040; (1935)68MLJ648
King, J.1. The jenm right in the property with which we are concerned in this appeal belongs to the Eralpad Raja of Calicut as part of his stanom. In 1913 it was granted on two verumpattom leases to tenants of whom defendants 1 to 8 are the present representatives. These leases are Exs. B and C, the former covering items 1 to 10 and the latter items 11 to 14 of the items in suit. In 1920 by Ex. A the then holder of the stanom granted a ' melcharth ' to the plaintiff with powers to evict the Raja's tenants. In 1923 plaintiff sued on this melcharth, and obtained a decree for eviction from the District Munsif of Palghat, which decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam. Plaintiff has accordingly appealed to the High Court.2. Two reasons were given by the learned Subordinate Judge for his decision and it is those reasons which have now to be considered by us. The first was that the melcharth itself was invalid, the money borrowed under it not having been borrowed for a purpo...
P.R. Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ348
ORDERCronish, J.1. The Petitioners were convicted of offences under the Madras City Police Act, Sections 45 and 46 Accused 1 of keeping or permitting to be kept and Accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 of using a common gaming house, and Accused 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming house, and Accused 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.2. The premises in question were occupied by Accused 1 who conducted a printing business there, known as the All-India Printing Works, and in the course of his business printed race-books and other racing intelligence. Accused 4 and 5 were clerks employed by him.3. The evidence is that on the day when the premises were raided by the police a number of persons were found on and around the pial of the building; that accused 2 and 3 were on the pial taking betting slips from accused 6 and 7; and that betting slips were found on these accused persons. These betting slips were pieces of pa...
Syed Abdul Hameed Sahib and anr. Vs. Syed Unnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad692
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant set up a case of inheritance by lineal primogeniture. This he has not been able to prove. He not haying proved his title, consideration as to whether the defendant, a woman, is competent to hold the office does not arise. Even if it does arise I should hold on the authority of the decision of this Court in Munnavaru Begam Sahibu v. Mir Mahapall Sahib 1919 Mad. 202 that she is fit to hold the office as it has not been shown that she is disqualified on account of some special reason. It is said that in Second Appeal No. 51 of 1886 a woman was held disqualified from holding the office of Asarai Sheriff as the duties of the office are merely spiritual. But the High Court simply accepted the finding of the lower Court and the decision in my view cannot be taken as laying down the proposition that the office of Asarai Sheriff cannot be held by a woman on the ground that the duties of the office are spiritual. As a matter of fact in this case it is ...
Saraswati Ammal Vs. Srinivasa Nandian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad735a; 153Ind.Cas.694
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs legal representative is the appellant. The first question that arises for determination in this second appeal is whether Ex. 6 is admissible in evidence. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money due under two hypothecation deeds, Exs. B and D. These were executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his brothers and defendant 6 is the son of defendant 1 the defendant's case is that Ex. B is not supported by consideration. To prove that Ex. B is not supported by consideration and was only a nominal document, Ex. 6 was relied on. This is a varthamanam dated 5th May 1918. This document after referring to Ex. B says that:Inasmuch as no amount is due to me thereunder and it is benami I have executed this varthamanam in token of my cancelling the said deed and the deed previous thereto when required by you and of my having no right to take any action thereunder.2. This is written by the plaintiff's predecessor to defendant 1. If this doc...
Marudamuthu Padayachi Vs. C.S. Raghava Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad22; 153Ind.Cas.297
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The only point pressed in this case is that the omission of the Sub-Magistrate to examine the petitioner (accused in the case before him) under Section 342, Criminal P.C., afresh at the de novo trial is an illegality which has vitiated the trial. It has not been contended that new matter was introduced into the evidence during the de novo trial for the first time or that there was anything in the evidence at the trial about which the accused had not already given his explanation. In other words, there has been no prejudice to the accused in consequence of the omission to examine him a second time under Section 342, Criminal P.C. and it is not alleged that there has been any miscarriage of justice in consequence of the omission. The Full Bench ruling in Varisai Rowther v. King-Emperor 1923 Mad. 609, relied upon by the petitioner's advocate does not go to the length of laying down that the omission to examine the accused for a second time during a de novo trial is...
Syed Abdul Hamid Sahib and anr. Vs. Syedunnisa Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.630
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant set up a case of inheritance by lineal primogeniture. This he has not been able to prove. He not having proved his title, consideration as to whether the defendant, a woman is competent to hold the office does arise. Even if it does arise, I should hold on the authority of the decision of this Court in Munnavaru Begam Sahibu v. Mir Mahapalli Sahib 51 Ind. Cas. 489 : 41 M 1033 that she is fit to hold the office as it has not been shown that she is disqualified on account of some special reason. It is said that in S.A. No. 51 of 1886 a woman was held disqualified from holding the office of Asarai Sheriff as the duties of the office are merely spiritual. But the High Court simply accepted the finding of the lower Court and the decision in my view cannot be taken as laying down the proposition that the office of Asarai Sheriff cannot be held by a woman on the ground that the duties of the office are spiritual. As a matter of fact in this case it ...
In Re: P.R. Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.741
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioners were convicted of offences under the Madras City Police Act, Sections 45 and 46; Accused No. 1 of keeping or permitting to be kept and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of using, a common gaming house, and accused Nos. 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.2. The premises in question were occupied by accused No. 1 who conducted a printing business there, known as the All India Printing Works, and in the course of his business printed race-books and other racing intelligence. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were clerks employed by him.3. The evidence is that on the day when the premises were raided by the Police a number of persons were found on and around the pial of the building; that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were on the pial taking betting slips from accused Nos. 6 and 7; and that betting slips were found on these accused persons. These betting slips were pieces of paper with the names of race horses written thereon a...
Sigappi Vs. Kathayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad68; 155Ind.Cas.190
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration of title to the suit properties, for a permanent injunction, and, if necessary, for recovery of possession of the same free from interference from the defendant. The plaintiff is the wife of the deceased son of the defendant. The defendant's son died in November 1926. According to the plaintiff's evidence, she collected the crops from the suit lands of the year of the death of her husband. The next year she cultivated the lands and the defendant, and her men destroyed the crops. Then the present suit was filed on 28th July 1928. On the merits, the defendant's contention was that the plaintiff cannot claim any right to the properties as her son was disqualified for various reasons from inheriting them. The plaintiff was given a decree by the first Court and this decree was confirmed in appeal. The defendant did not give her entire evidence before the t...
Emperor Vs. Subramania Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad648
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the order of acquittal passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam in a case in which 20 persons were charged by the Police with an offence punishable' under Section 9, (Madras Gaming Act 3 of 1930). The Sub-Magistrate convicted all the accused, and on appeal all of them were acquitted by the Subdivisional Magistrate.2. The two questions that arise in this; appeal are : (1) whether the presumption referred to in Section 6, Gaming Act, is available to the prosecution in this case, and (2) whether the evidence of P. W. 2, which alone refers to the alleged common gaming house, was wrongly disbelieved or discredited by the appellate. Court. As regards the first point, the appellate Magistrate has relied on the. ruling in Gangadas Banerjee v. Emperor 1930 Cal 365 , and my attention has not been drawn to any decision pointing the other way. Even apart from the decision relied upon by the Subdivisional Magistra...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Subramania Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.496; (1935)68MLJ421
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam in a case in which 20 persons were charged by the Police with an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Madras Gaming Act, III of 1930. The Sub-Magistrate convicted all the accused, and on appeal all of them were acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.2. The two questions that arise in this appeal are: (1) whether the presumption referred to in Section 6 of the Gaming Act is available to the prosecution in this case and (2) whether the evidence of P.W. No. 2 which alone refers to the alleged common gaming house, was wrongly disbelieved or discredited by the Appellate Court. As regards the first point, the Appellate Magistrate has relied on the ruling in Gangadas Banerjee v. Emperor : AIR1930Cal365 and my attention has not been drawn to any decision pointing the other way. Even apart from the decision relied upon by the Sub-Divisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »