Chennai Court July 1911 Judgments
Sri Maharajah of Vizianagram Vs. Kota Veeranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ819
1. The preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies in this case as the suit is of a small cause nature. The question is whether a suit for recovery of land cess by the zemindar from the inamdar can be said to fall within Article 13 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That article is in these words : 'A suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively called malikana and haqq, or of cesses or other dues when the cesses or dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property or in an hereditary office, or in a shrine or other religious institution.'2. Now can it be said that the laud cess is payable to the zamindar by the inamdar by reason of the former's interest in immoveable property? We think not. The land cess is a tax levied by the Government and the landlord who in the first instance has paid to the Government is entitled to recover it from an intermediate tenure-holder because the latter as between himself and the la...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ824
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for revision of an order of the District Judge of Madura, revoking the succession certificate granted to the petitioner here and granting a certificate to the respondents.2. The petitioner here claimed the certificate as legatee under a will made by a deceased Hindu. His application was opposed by the respondents, the widows of the deceased. The Subordinate Judge, to whom the application was made, took evidence on the question of the genuineness of the will. His conclusion, to set it out in his own words, was as follows : 'I find that for purposes of this petition the will is proved. This decision will not affect the right of the respondents to have the will declared void or to have it set aside.' It is not quite clear to me whether the Subordinate Judge meant that on the evidence he came to the conclusion that the will was genuine, but that his opinion would not constitute the matter res judicata ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kurnam Seshayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ781
ORDER1. In this case we are asked to review the order of the Joint Magistrate of Nandyal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on petitioners by the Sub-Magistrate of Kalwa for an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code (house trespass).2. The facts of the case are simple. Complainant and his wife who were sleeping in their house, the door of which was open, awoke in the dead of night and discovered that some persons were inside the building. An alarm was raised and these persons were subsequently found to be petitioners. A dagger, which does not belong to the inmates and which, it is inferred, was brought by the petitioners, was found in a corner of the house. 1st petitioner was not on good terms with complainant, and had, on the previous afternoon, taken part in getting his house searched for forest produce. Petitioners did not set up any innocent motive for their presence in the house under the circumstances deposed to by the prosecution witnessess, but attempted to sh...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council of Kumbakonam Vs. Abbahsaib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ790
1. The petitioners, the Kumbakonam Municipal Council, sued the respondent of the Small Cause side to recover the balance due by him under a lease which he had taken of the right to collect fees on the slaughter of animals, which the Council are entitled to levy under Section 191 of the District Muncipalities Act (Madras Act IV of 1884.)2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the Council was not empowered to lease the right in question and that the contract sued on was illegal and could not be enforced. This is the decree which we are now asked to set aside on revision.3. A case of a precisely similar character, though arising in the city of Madras, turning on the legality of a Municipal Council leasing out the right of collecting slaughtering fees has been decided by Wallis J. (C.S. No. 244 of 1907) (1909) 21 M.L.J. 788 and although it was decided with reference to the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Act III of 1904 and not of the District Muncipalities A...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagnanahammal Vs. Arunachellum Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ821
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin appointing a receiver pendente lite in a suit in which the reliefs asked for by the plaintiffs-reversioners are the appointment of a receiver and the issue of an injunction restraining waste and mismanagement on the part of a mother and her deceased son's sister's son. The 2nd defendant sets up a will under, which he (the deceased's nephew) is to get a moiety of the property during the mother's lifetime and is to take the whole estate absolutely on her death. The 1st defendant supports this will and the plaintiff impugns it. The language of Order XLI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, which governs the present case, differs slightly from the language of Section 503 of the Code of 1882 by the introduction of the words 'just and convenient.' The latest decision in which the alteration is considered is Sreemati Mathurai Debya v. Shib Dayal Singh Hazari (1909) 14 C.W.N. 252, and we are disposed to ag...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council Vs. Abbahs Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad113
1. The petitioners, the Kumbakonam Municipal Council, sued the respondent on the Small Cause side to recover the balance due by him under a lease which he had taken of the right to collect fees on the slaughter of animals, which the Council are entitled to levy under Section 191 of the District Municipalities Act: Madras Act; IV of 1884. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the Council was not empowered to lease the right in question and that the contract sued on was illegal and could not be enforced. This is the decree which we are now asked to set aside on revision.2. A case of a precisely similar character, though arising in the City of Madras turning on the legality of a Municipal Council leasing out the right of collecting slaughtering fees has been decided by Wallis, J. (C.S. No. 244 of 1907); and although it was decided with reference to the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Act III of 1904 and not of the District Municipalities. Act, yet the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thota Narayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ755
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The Village Magistrate does not appear in these proceedings. The affidavit alleges that the complainant in the case in which the petitioner has been convicted by the Village Magistrate is a servant of the Village Magistrate and that the complaint was instituted at the instance of the latter between whom and the petitioner there has existed enmity for some time. The petitioner applied to the Magistrate for adjournment in order to move the High Court for a transfer, but the application was refused and the petitioner was tried and convicted the same day. It does not appear that there was good reason for the refusal of the adjournment, and under the circumstances I must hold that the Village Magistrate was not justified in trying the accused. The Cr.P.C. does not apply to these proceedings, but the facts of the case shew that there have been serious irregularities in the trial. I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the accused be tried by the S...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H.M. Abdul Razack Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ753
1. It is argued by the petitioner's vakil that inasmuch as the petitioner preferred a complaint to the Presidency Magistrate after his complaint to the Police had been enquired into, the Presidency Magistrate's sanction for prosecution was necessary under Section 195, Cr.P.C., and its absence vitiates the proceedings.2. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Magistrate's sanction was necessary its absence doss not entail the reversal of the conviction unless it is shown to have occasioned a failure of justice which has certainly not been proved in the present case. This appears clearly to be the meaning of Section 537, Cr.P.C., and it has been so interpreted in Perumal Naidu v. Emperor I.LR. (1907) M. 80. The petitioner's vakil seeks to distinguish the latter case on the ground that there the objection was not taken when the case under Section 211, I.P.C., first came on for evidence. This is a point to be borne in mind as laid down in the Explanation to Section 537; but it does not...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govindaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ748
1. The appellant has been convicted of cheating by personation (Section 419, I.P.C.) and of an offence under Section 112(a) of the Railways Act. It is not denied that he travelled by the South Indian Railway from Trichinopoly to Podanur without a ticket and that on arrival at Podanur he presented a forged Railway Pass made out in the name of the 'Servant of Mr. Brown, Assistant Auditor' - a description which did not apply and never had applied to him. The appellant in his appeal petition admits all this, and merely pleads that he was induced by deceitful friends to buy the Pass for a less sum than the fare would have amounted to.2. In our opinion the conviction under Section 419, I.P.C., must be changed to one of attempt only. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant at any time showed the pass to a Ticket Examiner or other Railway official before the completion of his journey, and his presentation of it, when challenged at Podanur, can only be regarded as a dishonest attempt t...
Tag this Judgment!Sakki Reddi Appalasawmy and anr. Vs. Pakkurti Venkatasawmi Naidu (Dece ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.682
1. Both Courts have found Exhibit D to be genuine. The first question argued before us on behalf of the appellants is that the District Judge's view that Exhibit D did not require registration because the rent reserved is payable in grain is erroneous. The District Judge has based his opinion on an unreported judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 1524 of 1901. But upon reading the proviso to Section 17 Clause (d) of the Registration Act, we are, with all deference to the learned Judges who decided the second appeal referred to above, unable to hold that the proviso only refers to rent payable in money. The enactment in question is in these words: 'Provided that the Local Government may, by order published in the local official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which, do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.' There seems to be nothing in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »