Chennai Court October 1912 Judgments
Sawmi Chetty Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.271; (1912)23MLJ591
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The question whether a moneylender comes within the expression 'dealers of every description' in class III of the Vth Schedule to the City Municipal Act, is a question of law and the Magistrates were under Section 176 of the Act bound to have referred that question to the High Court on the application of petitioner (who was the appellant before them).2. Their order refusing to make the reference is set aside and they, are directed to make the reference....
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Rowthan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.569
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Reading the deposition of the petitioner as a whole, I cannot say that the Magistrate's action requires interference of this Court under its revisional powers which are not exercised as matter of course.2. As regards the delay of 5 days in taking action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the Full Bench case in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 4 M.L.T. 404 : 19 M.L.J. 42 does not decide that the action should be taken invariably in the course of the judicial proceeding or at its conclusion. If it is taken within reasonable promptitude, that is, so shortly after the conclusion of the proceedings as to make it practically the continuation of the same proceeding, it will suffice. I hold that the action taken by the Magistrate in this case was prompt enough.3. The petition is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Varagima Ramasomasundara Arulappa Naiker Vs. V.R.R.M.S.T.M.R. Murugapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ658
Miller, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned colleague has prepared and will now deliver.Abdur Rahim, J.2. The appellant as plaintiff in the suit seeks to recover the Pavali Zamin, a small impartible Zamindari which belonged to his ancestors and was sold in 1869 at a court auction during the life time of his father and purchased by one Chidambaram Chettiar the 1st Respondent's father. It was in execution of a decree obtained by Chidambaram Chettiar himself in a suit (O.S. No 10) of 1866 that the sale took place. The plaintiff's father died on the 24th January 1894 and the present suit was instituted on the 23rd January 1906 just on the last day of the 12 years since the plaintiff's father's death. The Subordinate fudge having found on the main issues on the merits against the plaintiff dismissed the suit. By the 3rd issue the plaintiff raised the contention that the Zamindari in question was inalienable by custom but the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this point which i...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.S. Avalappa Naicker Vs. V.R.R.M.S.T.M.R. Murugappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad325
Miller, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned Colleague has prepared and will now deliver.Abdur Rahim, J.2. The appellant as plaintiff in the suit seeks to recover the Pavaly zamin, a small impartible zamindari which belonged to his ancestors and was sold in 1869 at a court-auction during the life-time of his father and purchased by one Chidambaram Chettiar, the first defendant's father. It was in execution of a decree obtained by Chidambaram Chettiar himself in a suit (Original Suit No. 10 of 1866) that the sale took place. The plaintiff's father died on 24th January 1894 and the present suit was instituted on 23rd January 1906 just on the last day of the 12 years since the plaintiff's father's death. The Subordinate Judge having found on the main issues on the merits against the plaintiff dismissed the suit. By the third issue the plaintiff raised the contention that the zamindari in question was inalienable by custom but the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this point w...
Tag this Judgment!Varagima Rama Somasundara Avalappa Naicker Vs. V.R.R.M.S.T.M.R. Muruga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.49
Miller, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned colleague has prepared and will now deliver.Abdur Rahim, J.2. The appellant as plaintiff in the suit seeks to recover the Oveli zamin, a small impartible zemindari, which belonged to his ancestors and was sold in 1869 at a Court-auction during the lifetime of his father and purchased by one Chidambaram Chettiar, the 1st defendant's father. It was in execution of a decree obtained by Chidambaram Chettiar himself in a suit (Original Suit No. 10 of 1866) that the sale took place The plaintiff's father died on the 24th January 1894 and the present suit was instituted on 23rd January 1906 just on the last day of the 12 years since the plaintiff's father's death. The Subordinate Judge, having found on the main issues on the merits against the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. By the third issue, the plaintiff raised the contention that the zemindari in question was inalienable by custom but the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this poin...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Math Abhinavothanda Vidyaranya Bharathi Swami Vs. Adoni Bheema Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.58; (1913)24MLJ358
Miller, J.1. The plaintiffs have asked for a declaration that the defendant Dharmakarta of the Hampi temple was properly dismissed by them. The dismissal was on the 17th January 1905. The Subordinate Judge has held that he was properly dismissed but his conclusion, in my opinion, is not correct.2. In support of the Subordinate Judge's finding, three grounds of dismissal are relied upon by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar as justifying the action of the plaintiffs. The first is that the defendant failed to submit accounts to the Committee. The accounts, which were called for in 1895, were submitted by the defendant's agent and it is not shown that they were incorrect. Subsequent accounts, no doubt, were not rendered, because for the period from 1895 to 1904, they were not called for. In June 1895, the Committee illegally dismissed the defendant's agent and on the 23rd December 1895, dismissed the defendant himself and from that time onward, they refused to recognize him as Dharmakarta and they ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Chetti and ors. Vs. Prabhayya Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ174
1. We are unable to take the view taken by the District Judge.2. The 1st plaintiff was wrongly described in the plaint as a minor but was described as a plaintiff and though he has not himself signed and verified the plaint he is not merely on' that account to be considered as no party Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das I.L.R. (1889) C. 580. Want of signature or verification does not entail the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and such verification and signature can be supplied at any stage of the proceeding under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 153 of the Code. Unless then it can be held that so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned there is really no plaint, the respondents cannot succeed, for it is only in the view that the 1st plaintiff was not on the record as plaintiff that his addition now could be considered as the bringing of a new plaintiff and so attract to the case the provision of Section 22 of the Limitation Act; and but for...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Chetty and ors. Vs. Prabhayya Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.580
1. We are unable to take the view taken by the District Judge.2. The 1st plaintiff was wrongly described in the plaint as a minor but was described as a plaintiff and though he has not himself signed and verified the plaint, he is not merely on that account to be considered as, no party Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das 17 C. 580. Want of signature or verification does not entail the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and such verification and signature can be supplied at any stage of the proceedings under Order VI, Rule 17 and Section 153 of the Code. Unless then it can be held that so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned, there is really no plaint, the respondents cannot succeed, for it is only in the view that the 1st plaintiff was not on the record as plaintiff that his addition now could be considered as the bringing in of a new plaintiff, and so attract to the case the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act: and but for...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.P.L. Vr. Veerappa Chetty Vs. Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1912
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.375; (1914)26MLJ373
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has held on the admitted facts that the suit is not cognisable by a Civil Court.2. It is argued before me that this is private land and, therefore, according to Section 19 of the Madras Estates Land Act the provisions of the Act that the landlord may bring suits before the Collector, Section 77(1), and that such suits are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, Section 189, do not apply.3. Plaintiff alleges in his plaint that his predecessor purchased from the tenants the Kudivaram right and was in possession of it. It is contended that he thereby became absolute owner of the property which must for this purpose be, therefore, treated as his private land.4. Under section 8, Clause (3), merger of the occupancy right by transfer or succession under clauses (1) and (2) has not the effect of converting ryoti land into private land. But under clause (4) incases where such merger takes place by transfer for valuable consideration before t...
Tag this Judgment!Koolappa Rowthar Alias Syed Muhammad Rowther Vs. M. Appu Asari and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.736
1. Two contentions have been urged in support of this second appeal. It is argued that the property in question is not really trust property belonging to the chattram. Exhibit I clearly shows that the whole property was dedicated to the charity. By the karar, Exhibit E, all the income of the property in 1881 except 10 1/2 paras of paddy was appropriated for the performance of the charity. The parties to the karar agreed to divide the rest among themselves and also agreed that, if there was any increase in the income, the various members should divide it between themselves. At the same time, they entered into an agreement that they would defray the expenses of any repairs that might be required. There is no intention apparent in that document to affect the trust created by Exhibit I. It was an arrangement for the management of the trust property. Whether the provisions for the division of any increase in the income between the members would be upheld as valid in law or not, it is unnece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »