Chennai Court November 1936 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.
Marimittath theruvil Moothachettiam Veettil Kelu Vs. Kuitiyil Machikan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.47
1. In 1853, the Karnavan of the Mootha Chettian Veettil Tarwad executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one kuttiassan. In 1871, the assignees of the mortgagee executed a surrender deed, Ex. III in favour of one Chappan, who claimed to be the karnavan of the M. Tarwad. It appears, however, that two bodies of people claimed to constitute the M. Tarwad and two rival karnavans (the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant) claimed the equity of redemption of this mortgage on behalf of these two bodies. In this suit it has been established by evidence to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court that the present plaintiff has the rights of the mortgagor and that the 1st defendant, who actually purported to redeem the mortgage, had no right at all to do so. It has also been established that as long as 1878, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the 1st defendant was holding the land, not merely as one who had acquired rights from the original mortgagee, but as t...
Kotta Venkatarajugaru Vs. Sri Raja Sahib Maherban-i-dostan Sri Raja Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.533
Varadachariar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against an order of Cornish, J., refusing to restore S.A. No. 848 of 1932, which was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, as the appellant's Counsel did not appear when the case was called. In support of the application a verified petition has been filed by the Counsel engaged in the case and it is there stated that at the time the second appeal came on before our learned brother, the Counsel was actually engaged in arguing a case before another Division Bench, that he did not make other arguments for the second appeal because he expected the case before the Division Bench to be over earlier but that to meet all contingencies he had asked a representative to be made to our learned brother if the case should be reached earlier, that he was actually engaged before another Bench and that he would be before Cornish, J., in a few minutes.2. When the matter came on before us on a, previous occasion, a ques...
In Re: Pattinathan Alias Krishnaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ178
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 167, Clause 78 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) according to which the offence is defined as follows:If any person intentionally obstructs any officer of Customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling, in the exercise of any powers given under the Act to such officer or person.2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner was modified in appeal into one directing him to execute a bond for his good behaviour for one year. The only question that is argued in this petition, and that is an important question, is whether the facts as alleged and proved by the prosecution constitute the offence in question, or to put it more clearly whether the facts constitute obstruction. The facts are briefly as follows. Two customs peons who were stationed on a road to watch and arrest smugglers who were expected to pass along the road saw a bicycle being driven very fast ...
Sakkarai Chettiar and ors. Vs. Chellappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad374
Burn, J.1. This was a suit for rent Under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. The fact have been clearly and fully sat out in the judgments of the learned Deputy Collector and the learned District Judge and need not be repeated in detail now. The lauds on which rent was claimed are situated in the village of Sinnayaviduthi and its hamlet Krishnapuram in the Neduvasal Zamin. The principal points in dispute between the plaintiff who was the landholder, and the defendants, related to 1 1/4 veils of land which the defendants claimed to be holding rent free as umbalam lands and 5 velis of land which they claimed to be holding under a permanent cowle at the rate of Rs. 5 per veli. The learned Deputy Collector found against the land-holder on both these points. On his appeal the learned District Judge found in favour of the tenants with regard to the umbalam lands and in favour of the landholder with regard to the cowle. The tenants preferred this appeal.2. A preliminary objection was raised...
Pattanathan Alias Krishna Sami Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.656
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 167, Clause 78 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) according to which the offence is denned as follows:If any person intentionally obstructs any officer of Customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling, in the exercise of any powers given under the Act to such officer or person.2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner was modified in appeal into one directing him to execute a bond for his good behaviour for one year. The only question that is argued in this petition, and that is an important question, is whether the facts as alleged and proved by the prosecution constitute the offence in question, or to put it more clearly, whether tin facts constitute obstruction. The facts are briefly as follows: Two Customs, peons who were stationed on a road to watch and arrest smugglers who were expected to pass along the road saw a by cycle being driven very fas...
Modeboyina Raghavalu Vs. Oduvu Narasa Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad222; (1937)1MLJ120
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner brought a summons case and after the appearance of the accused he was given three days' time to pay witness batta in order that his witnesses might be summoned. As the batta was not paid the Magistrate dismissed the complaint, purporting to act under Section 204(3), Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is contended here that Section 204(3) does not apply to non-payment of witness batta, and In the matter of Korapulu v. Monappa and Ors. I.L.R. (1882) 5 Mad. 160 has been cited to that effect. That was a case under the old Code when there was no section corresponding to Section 204(3) of the present Code. The Magistrate purported to dismiss the complaint under Section 205 of that Code, which resembles Section 247 of the present Code. Section 247 provides for the acquittal of the accused in cases of nonappearance of the complainant. It was held in that case that Section 205 did not apply. There seems to be no reason to think that the power given to the Magistrate...
Boodapati Ankamma, Wrongly Described as Nannuru Ankamma in the Decree ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ192
Varadachariar, J.1. Much as I pity the lot of the unfortunate appellant who had been made a pawn in a discreditable game played by some of her misguided relatives, I do not find any ground on which I can interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Court.2. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the defendant was not his legally wedded wife; and the allegations in the plaint imply either that there was no marriage in fact or in any event it did not amount to a valid marriage. It is common ground that the marriage, if any, took place under abnormal circumstances. The plaintiff was undoubtedly a young man-it makes very little difference whether he was 18 or 20 at the time and the defendant's witnesses agree that the plaintiff's parents who were well-to-do parents were not likely to agree to his marrying the defendant. It is accordingly the defendant's story that the marriage took place one evening in a stranger's house at a village four or five miles away from the village of the...
P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar Vs. C.P.A. Rama Nadar (Deceased) Pichaimani Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad385; (1937)1MLJ453
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts have been fully set forth in the order of referring Judges and need not be recapitulated. The short question is, whether when a revision petition is filed, it is permissible to hold under Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, that the date of the order in revision made by the High Court, furnishes the starting point; in other words, whether the term 'appeal' is used in a restrictive sense so as to exclude revision petitions and the expression 'the Appellate Court' is to be confined to a Court exercising appellate, as opposed to, revisional powers. The only considered decision directly bearing on the point is Subramania Pillai v. Seethai Ammal (1911) 24 M.L.J. 457 : I.L.R. 36 Mad. 135, which places a restrictive interpretation upon the word 'appeal'; but as the learned Judges who have referred the question, rightly point out, that decision is inconsistent with the views expressed in numerous authoritative decisions as to the true meaning of the terms 'ap...
Modiboyina Raghavalu Vs. Oduvu Narasa Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.639
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner brought a summons case and after the appearance of the accused he was given three days time to pay witness batta in order that his. Witness, might be summoned. As the batta was not paid, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint, purporting to act under Section 201(3), Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is contended here that Section 204(3) does not apply to non-payment of witness batta, and In the matter of Korapalu v. Monappa 5 M 160 : 2 Weir 205 has been cited to that effect. That was a case under the old Code when there was no section corresponding to Section 204(3) of the present Code. The Magistrate purported to dismiss the complaint under Section 20) of that Code, which resembles Section 247 of the present Cede. Section 247 provides for the acquittal of the accused in cases of non-appearance of the complainant. It was held in that case that Section 205 did not apply. There seems to be no reason to think that the power given to the Magistrate under Secti...
T.S. Ramaswami Aiyangar, Property Guardian and Manager of the Estate o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ274
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ramnad in regard to a prosecution for non-payment of profession tax under the District Municipalities Act Vol 1920. One Mr. T.S. Ramaswamy Aiyangar was prosecuted as the property guardian and manager of the estate of a lunatic Thenammal for non-payment of an alleged profession tax under r. 30, Clause 2 of Schedule 4 of the District Municipalities Act.2. The case for the prosecution is that the said lunatic Thenammal was residing within the limits of the Sivakasi Municipality, that profession tax was payable in respect of the income alleged to have been received by her and T. Section Rama-swami Aiyangar who is representing her estate ought to pay the said tax. Under Rule 19(1) he was asked to submit a return showing the income. He submitted a return stating that he was not liable to pay the profession tax on the ground that he was not residing within the local limits of the Munici...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »