Chennai Court February 1935 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.
Vallachami Pillai and ors. Vs. Thiruvavoor Devasthanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad452
Walsh, J.1. The suit is to set aside an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Division (Ex. D), dated 18th June 1924. This order was made on an application by the Manager of defendant 1 Devasthanam under Section 3(5), 'Madras Estates Land Act, praying that he may be declared a landlord for the purposes of the Act in respect of the two villages Yeppaduppu and Islani -which were granted as inams to the miras holders of certain services in the Devasthanam. The conclusion of the Revebue Divisional Officer was thatas the two villages have been in the possession Of the Devasthanam by virtue of usufructuary mortgage and otherwise I declare the Manager o the Tiruvarur Devasthanam as land holder for purposes of Section 3(5), Madras Estates Land Act.2. The mortgage deed under which the Devasthanam took possession of the suit Villages is Ex. 1 dated 5th May 1885. The service holders litigated with regard to this mortgage and the matter finally went up to the High Court which by it...
Sri Raja Lanka Venkat Rattamma Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Kandregula Srinivasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad592
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal and this re-vision petition arise out of one and the same order of the District Judge of West Godaveri dated 16th January 1931 directing the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur to restore O.S. No. 41 of 1927 to his file and dispose of it according to law. That was a suit instituted for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certain block of land shown in the plan is part of the village of Kalipatnam and belongs to the plaintiff, after setting aside the decision to the contrary of the Assistant Director of Survey who had fixed the boundary between the two villages Ghinagallapalam and Kalipatnam as the middle line of the stream or water course known as Uppukalwa. The plaint also contained a prayer for permanent injunction.2. The Subordinate Judge found that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the order of the Survey Officer was final and conc...
T. Kakrullakhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ415
ORDER1. It is agreed before us by both sides that under the terms of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it stands since the amendment of 1923 a Court in British India cannot try an offence by virtue of the terms of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because part of the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction if some part of the offence has been committed in a Native State. The Section renders the certificate of the Political Agent (in the present case, the Resident in Mysore) necessary even in such cases. We think that for this reason not only the charges of forgery (Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code) but also those of cheating (Sections 410 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code) are not triable in the Chittoor District without such a certificate because some part of the cheating as well as the whole of the forgery was committed within the Mysore State. We must therefore quash the commitment in S.C. No. 36 of 1934 on the file of the Cour...
R.G. Nallakuttalam Pillai Vs. Vaithinatha Bhattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad576
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 26th January 1933 in appeal No. 47 of 1933 from the order of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur dated 1st August 1932 dismissing the application in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 172 of 1920. In that suit the plaintiff obtained a decree declaring his right to certain hereditary offices, four in number, of which what is known as Periathanam was one, in the temple of Sri Yaidyanathaswami at Madavar-vilagam. There was also a permanent injunction granted by the decree against the defendants who are the trustees representing the temple restraining them from interfering with the performance of services by him in respect of these offices. The decree-holder alleged that his rights as Periathanakkar were interfered with in the matter of the management of certain properties which are described as Samudayam properties and that this interference with his rights by the present trustee of t...
(Karnam) Venkataseshyya Vs. (Karnam) Ramaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad714
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Kurnool dated 24th October 1932, setting aside in appeal an order of the District Munsif of Kurnool dated 21st January 1932 and remanding execution application No. 76 of 1932 to that Court for further disposal in the light of the observations made by him. The application was one made under Order 21, Rules 64 and 66, Civil P.C. The prayer in that application was that the Court may be pleased to set aside its previous order dated 17th November 1931 and to direct the sale of the mortgaged properties seriatim. The previous order referred to was one which directed that items 1 to 5 should be sold after the other items 6 to 22 were sold. These latter items are those to which the appellant in the District Court was entitled, and that order was passed apparently after a notice, to settle the sale proclamation was issued, but served only by affixture so far as the appellant in the District Court was concerned. It was o...
Kuppuswamy Chetty Vs. Ayyammai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad723
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition seeking to revise the order of the District Judge of Madura dated 17th February 1930 in C.M.A. No. 26 of 1929, which was an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura dated 31st December 1928 dismissing an application to file an award and to pass a decree in terms of the award. The District Judge held that the appeal was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and accordingly directed the appeal to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The appeal was accordingly presented to this Court and it has been filed as C.M.A. No. 295 of 1930. The present petition is a kind of alternative remedy sought by the appellant in that appeal, his contention in this petition being that the order of the District Judge is wrong, and that the appeal which he returned for presentation was within his competence to decide and should have been decided by himself.2. The jurisdiction in this matter of the District Judge is defined by Section 13, Madra...
In Re: T. Fakurulla Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.1048
ORDER1. It is agreed before us by both sides that under the terms of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it stands since the amendment of 1923, a Court in British India cannot try an offence by virtue of the terms of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, merely because part of the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction, if some part of the offence has been committed in a Native State. The section renders the certificate of the Political Agent (in the present case, the Resident in Mysore) necessary even in such cases. We think that for this reason not only the charges of forgery (Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code) but also those of cheating (Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian, Penal Code) are not triable in the Chittoor District without such a certificate because some part of the cheating as well as the whole of the forgery was committed within the Mysore State. We must, therefore, quash the commitment in S.C. No. 36 of 1934, on the file of t...
T. Fakhrulla Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad326
ORDER1. It is agreed before us by both sides that under the terms of Section 188, Criminal P.C., as it stands since the amendment of 1923 a Court in British India cannot try an offence by virtue of the terms of Section 179, Criminal P.C., merely because part of the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction if some part of the offence has been committed in a Native State. The section renders the certificate of the Political Agent, (in the present case, the Resident in Mysore) necessary even in such cases. We think that for this reason not only the charges of forgery (Sections 467 and 468, I.P.C.,) but also those of cheating (Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. are not triable in the Chittoor District without such a certificate because some part of the cheating as well as the whole of the forgery was committed within the Mysore State. We must therefore quash the commitment in S.C. No. 36 of 1934 on the file of the Court of Session of the Chittoor Division on each and eyery charge preferr...
Karnam Venkataseshayya Vs. Karnam Ramaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.141
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Kurnool dated October 24, 1932, setting aside in appeal an order of the District Munsif of Kurnool, dated January 21, 1932, and remanding execution application No. 76 of 1932 to that Court for further disposal in the light of the observations made by him. The application was one made under Order XXI, Rules 64 and 66, Civil Procedure Code. The prayer in that application was that the Court may be pleased to set aside its previous order dated November 17, 1931, and to direct the sale of the mortgaged properties seriatim. The previous order referred to was one which directed that items Nos. 1 to 5 should be sold after the other items Nos. 6 to 22 were sold. These latter items are those to which the appellant in the District Court was entitled, and that order was passed apparently after a notice to settle the sale proclamation was issued, but served only by affixture so far as the appellant in the District Court wa...
Ramaswami Muthirian and anr. Vs. the Firm of Ki Karu, Rama Ki Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad919; 159Ind.Cas.958; (1935)69MLJ443
Stone, J.1. This case raises a point of some interest, vis., whether an appeal lies in the following circumstances. A suit is filed as a small cause suit in a Court having small cause jurisdiction. Then, owing to a change in the Judge presiding over the Court, the Court temporarily loses small cause jurisdiction and the case, together with other pending small cause cases, is marked as an original suit, in order, it is said, to attract Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and in order to keep in order the records of the Court. Then the Court ceases to be presided over by that Judge with limited jurisdiction and a Judge is appointed who has small cause Court powers so that the suit can be tried by him as a small cause suit, In fact, however, it is not re-numbered, it continues on the files as an original suit, and is so disposed of. Does that change its nature? Or does it remain what it began, as vis., a small cause suit. If it became an original suit, an appeal lies. If i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »