Chennai Court August 1910 Judgments
Rama Aiyar Vs. A.L. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ756
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether it is open to the appellant to impeach the validity of the mortgage on which the suit is brought. The question arises in this way. The suit is by the mortgagee. The 1st defendant is the mortgagor. Defendants Nos. 23 and 24 held a money-decree against the mortgagor, and they attached the mortgaged property. The mortgagee put in a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. The mortgagor was not a party to those proceedings. On the hearing of that claim the mortgage was attacked by defendants Nos. 23 and 24 on two grounds. It was attacked on the ground that it was invalid because the provisions of Section 257-A of the Code had not been complied with, and on the ground that it was a sham. Notwithstanding that the mortgage was impeached on the grounds I have stated, the claim of the mortgagee was upheld. Defendants Nos. 23 and 24 became the purchasers at the court sale held under the order mad...
Tag this Judgment!Karuthan Chetty and ors. Vs. Kalimuthan Alias Vellayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad323
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are inhabitants of a villaga called Nemathampatty and the defendants are also inhabitants of the same villaga. The matter in dispute is a pond or tank which may be described as the village pond of the village in question. It is said that the pond, as a matter of fact, is itself outside the boundaries of Nemathampatty village. But I think I am accurate in describing the pond as the village pond of the village of which the plaintiffs and the defendants are the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants.2. Now the case set up by the plaintiffs is that they had certain rights as hereditary trustees of this tank, the parties for whom the beneficiary rights are supposed to exist being the defendants and other villagers of the same village. It may be it is not strictly accurate to describe the defendants as the cestuis que trustent of the alleged trust, but there can be no doubt that the trust which the plaintiffs set up is supposed to exist for th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Aiyar Vs. A.L. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad35
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether it is open to the appellant to impeach the validity of the mortgage on which the suit is brought. The question arises in this way. The suit is by the mortgagee. The first defendant is the mortgagor. Defendants Nos. 23 and 24 held a money decree against the mortgagor and they attached the mortgaged property. The mortgagee put in a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. The mortgagor was not a party to these proceedings. On the hearing of that claim the mortgage was attached by defendants Nos. 23 and 24 on two grounds. It was attacked on the ground that it was invalid because the provisions of Section 257-A of the Code had not been complied with and on the ground that it was a sham. Notwithstanding that the mortgage was impeached on the grounds I have stated, the claim of the mortgagee was upheld. Defendants Nos. 23 find 24 became the purchasers at the Court sale held under the order made in...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Vidhyananda Paramahamsa Alias T.S. Muthusawmi Sastri Vs. V.T.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ195
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus by a father for the custody of his two daughters in their 14th and 16th years respectively.2. On reading the affidavits it appeared to me that the case is one which ought to be decided on sworn testimony. I accordingly directed the parties to examine witnesses. These are the facts.3. The petitioner who calls himself Swami Vidhyananda Paramahamsa alias T.S. Muthuswami Sastri is a B.A. of the Madras University and was a tutor in the Madras Christian College from 1892 to 1899, drawing a pay which ranged from Rs. 35 to 65. Before 1889, he had pledged himself that he would not marry his daughters before their 16th year. His wife had English education in the Training School and was a teacher in the Vijianagaram Rajah's Girls School. In 1895, while a tutor, the petitioner donned the yellow robe. In 1899 he went to Sringeri to become as anyasi. From there he wrote Exh...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.S. Veera Raghavalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ773
ORDERWallis, J.1. In this case the 3rd Presidency Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 125(1) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904, for failure to pay profession tax for the 1st half-year of the financial year 1909-10. It is common ground that the petitioner's name appeared in the classification drawn up by the President of the Corporation under S. 121, and it was shown that a notice had been served on him under S. 125, but he alleged that he had not exercised any profession within the city for sixty days during the current half-year, and the Presidency Magistrate convicted him, merely observing that he had no witnesses; but this appears to have reference to the failure of the petitioner to produce witnesses as to the service of notice, and the contention raised in behalf of the Corporation was that the fact of notice to pay the tax for the half year having been served on the petitioner was conclusive of his liability to' pay in view of his failure to apply for revis...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Veeraraghavulu Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad130
Wallis, J.1. In this case the Third Presidency Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 125 (1) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904, for failure to pay profession tax for the first half year of the financial year 1909-10. It is common ground that the petitioner's name appeared in the classification drawn up by the President of the Corporation under Section 121, and it was shown that a notice had been served on him under Section 125, but he alleged that he had not exercised any profession within the City for sixty days during the current half year, and the Presidency Magistrate convicted him, merely observing that he had no witnesses; but this appears to have reference to the failure of the petitioner to produce witnesses as to the service of notice, and the contention raised on behalf of the Corporation was that the fact of notice to pay the tax for the half year having been served on the petitioner was conclusive of his liability to pay in view of. his failure to apply...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.S. Veeraraghavulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.743
ORDERWallis, J.1. In this case, the 3rd Presidency Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 125(1) of the Madras City Municipal Tax Act, 1934, for failure to pay profession tax for the first half of the financial year 1909-1910. It is common ground that the petitioner's name appeared in the classification drawn up by the President of the corporation under Section 121, and it was shown that a notice had been served on him under Section 125, but he alleged that he had not exercised any profession within the city for sixty days during the current half year and the Presidency Magistrate convicted him merely observing that he had no witnesses, but this appears to have reference to the failure of the petitioner to produce witnesses as to the service of notice, and the contention raised on behalf of the Corporation was that the fact of notice to pay the tax for the half-year having been served on the petitioner was conclusive of his liability to pay, in view of his failure to apply f...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruven Gadam Pillai Vs. T. Ramanujulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.874
1. No suit can lie to declare that the judgment of the Revenue Court was not binding on the plaintiff, who was a party to it. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!N. Ekambareswara Iyer Vs. M. Veerabadra thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ982
ORDER1. This is an application for transfer of a petition to grant sanction to prosecute a person accused of offences falling within Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section enacts that no Court shall take cognisance of any of the offencos enumerated in Clauses (a) and (c) of the section except with the previous sanction, or on the complaint, of the Court in which, or in relation to a proceeding in which, the alleged offence is committed, or of some, other Court to which that Court is subordinate.2. Assuming then that Section 26 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives us power to transfer the application as being a criminal case, the language of Section 195 indicates that any transfer so made would be ineffective and futile unless the transfer was made to a Court to which the Court before which the application is pending is subordinate, for no Court could take cognizance of the case 011 a sanction granted by any Court not mentioned in the section....
Tag this Judgment!Ekambaraswara Iyar Vs. Veerabadra thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad186
ORDER1. This is an application for transfer of a petition to grant sanction to prosecute a person accused of offences falling within clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section enacts that no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offences enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of the section except with the previous sanction or on the complaint of the Court in which, or in relation to a proceeding in which, the alleged-offence is committed, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.2. Assuming then that Section 526 of-the Criminal Procedure Code gives us power to transfer the application as being a criminal case, the language of Section 195 indicates that any transfer so made would be ineffective and futile unless the transfer was made to a Court to which the Court before which the application is pending is subordinate, for no Court could take cognizance of the case on a sanction granted by any Court not mentioned in the section. No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »