Chennai Court January 1913 Judgments
Nathuram Sivagi Seltuley Muktyur Heergi Ramgi Seltu and anr. Vs. Krish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.1008
1. The District Judge appears to us not to have correctly apprehended the meaning of the expression 'preventing the execution of the decree by force or fraud' used in Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. The word 'fraud' has been always interpreted by this Court in a very liberal sense, see Visalatchi Ammal v. Sivasankara Taker 4 M.P 292; Pattakara Annamalai v. Rangasami 6 M.P 365; Venkayya v. Raghava Charlu 22 M.L 320 and Abdul Khadir v. Ajiyur Ahammad Shiva Ravuthar (1911) 2 M.W.N. 434; 10 M.L.T. 413; 22 M.L.J. 35; 35 M.P 670; 12 Ind. Cas. 679. Any improper means resorted to in order to prevent execution would amount to fraud. The decree-holder alleged in his application for execution that the judgment-debtor was hiding himself in foreign territory in order to prevent execution. The execution diary shows that several warrants for the arrest of the debtor were returned unserved. The Munsif was satisfied that the respondent was deliberately evading the process of the Court, though h...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lakshminarasimham Pantulu Garu Vs. Sree Sree Ramachandra Mardaraja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad585; (1914)ILR37Mad319
1. In this case the suit was instituted to set aside a distraint upon the plaintiff's land made by the defendant who is a zarnhidar. The plaintiff is' an intermediate tenure-holder under the defendant. The distraint was levied in order to recover a portion of certain arrears of cess which Iwd been collected from the defendant under Section 73 of the Madras Local Boards Act and which portion he was entitled to recover from the plaintiff.2. The first question argued before us is that Section 77 of the Estates Land Act does not authorize the zamindar to levy distraint against an intermediate tenure-holder and we think the language of Section 77 is clear to support that contention. This, in fact, is not disputed by the learned vakil for the respondent. Section 77 says, 'At any time after an arrear of rent has become due...the land-holder may, in addition to any other remedy to which he is entitled by this Act, in respect of any arrear of rent which has accrued due within the next preceding...
Tag this Judgment!S. Angappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.733; (1913)24MLJ198
1. It is contended that in all cases a Court dealing with an application for a succession certificate must hold some inquiry as to a claim by an applicant before it can hold that it raises questions too intricate and difficult for decision in a summary trial. In our opinion, the language of Section 7 of the Act does not support this contention. The pleadings in the case may be quite sufficient to show that the inquiry would be too difficult or intricate. The Court has, no doubt, to satisfy itself that the person to whom it grants the certificate has a prima facie right, and for this purpose, some inquiry might be necessary in many cases, but whereas in this case the rival claimant is the widow of the person for whose assets the certificate is asked, the prima facie right is clear. Sivamma v. Subbamma 17 M.K 477 is relied on for the appellants. That judgment may be perfectly right on the particular facts of the case but if it intended to lay down a hard and fast rule that the inquiry in...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamachariar and ors. Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ192
1. The suit which led to this second appeal was instituted for a declaration that the compromise and the decree passed in pursuance of it in A.S. Nos. 31 and 36 of 1908 in the District Court of Trichinopoly were not binding on the plaintiffs and the other Brahmin residents of the two villages, for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from executing the decrees in those appeals, and for recovering possession of 4 items of properties which the defendants had taken possession of in execution. The decrees which the plaintiffs wanted to avoid were passed on appeals from the decree of the District Munsif's Court of Srirangam in O.S. No. 167 of 1906. That suit was instituted by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 in the present suit for recovery of possession of certain items of property including items Nos. 1 to 4 in the plaint schedule which were claimed to belong to a certain charity. Plaintiff's Nos. 1 to 5 obtained a decree in O.S. No. 167. Some of the defendants in that suit preferred the app...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappa Nadan and ors. Vs. Vaithilinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.979
Miller, J.1. I have had the great advantages of reading the judgment which my learned colleague has prepared and will now deliver, and I accept his conclusion and agree in the decree and the order as to costs which he proposes to make.2. While the defendants have not adduced evidence proving that any public urani or drinking water tank such as the niravi in dispute has been reserved for the use of the higher castes alone, the plaintiffs have shown that in some villages in the vicinity of Kalloorani, there are wells which are used by Shanars as well as higher castes. This renders it the less difficult to reject the defendants' contention that the niravi and the well in its bed have been reserved for the higher castes, and the disputes, which have before the present suit resulted in the intervention of the Magistrates, do not clearly make out an assertion by the higher castes of their right to exclude the Shanars except when attempting to bathe, on occasions of funerals, when, it is not,...
Tag this Judgment!Yeddamapudi Lakshmi Narasimha Row Vs. Repalli Sitaramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ288
1. The plaintiff in this case is the Mokhasadar of Viravalli in the old Zamindari of Nuzvid, and the suit is to eject certain ryots from the lands of which they are in occupation. The question for decision raised in the issues is whether the defendants have the right of occupancy in the lands. The District Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants. The Subordinate Judge arrived at a different conclusion. The first point raised in Second Appeal is that there is no presumption in cases like this that the occupying ryots have a permanent right in the lands in their possession. The argument is that the presumption that an inamdar has only a melvaram right applies only to the case of inams granted by a Zamindar, and chiefly to the cases of small plots of land which constitute minor inams. The finding in this case is that the Mokhasa was granted by a Zamindar of Nuzvid. The Inam Register has been brought to our notice. We are unable to say that the...
Tag this Judgment!Valia Konikkal Edom Kelu Achen Vs. Valia Konikkal Edom Lakshmi Nethyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.234
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by some of the members of the Valia Konikal Edam, one of the branches of the Palghat Rajah's family, for arrears of what is called Menchiavu. The word is used to designate a part of what is required for the support of a person and is distinguished from what is strictly necessary for food and raiment. Legally, it may be taken to mean part of what would be included in the terms 'maintenance' and 'necessaries.' There was a karar entered into between most of the adult members of the Edam in the year 1901. The 1st plaintiff was one of the parties to it. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, her children, were born afterwards. According to that karar, the 1st plaintiff's mother, Salakshi Nethiyaramma, and her children were to be given Rs. 100 for their Menchilavu. The 1st plaintiff was then a minor and was stated in the karar to be represented by Kelu Achau, the karnavan of the Edam. There was no contract between the karnavan and the 1st plaintiff's mother as representi...
Tag this Judgment!Syed TajuddIn Sahib and anr. Vs. Shaik Ali Ahamad Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.358
ORDER1. It is conceded that the District Judge is wrong in saying that there is no satisfactory evidence that the appellants before him prevented the plaintiffs' men from catching fish; the written statements contain admissions of obstruction by the defendants.2. The plaintiffs then have laid a foundation for their claim for an injunction, if they could show that they bad established a right to take fish from the tank to the exclusion of the defendants. The case for the defendants was that all the villagers having lands in the Ayacut were entitled to rights in the fishery- and there is evidence on both sides, to which the District Judge has not referred. He refers to Exhibit XVIII and Exhibit D but merely to dismiss them with the remark that Exhibit D is not binding on the defendants, because they were not parties to Exhibit XVIII. This, it is alleged before us, is incorrect; the defendants, it is said, were represented among the Jeevita Maniyamdars in the former suit, and Exhibit D, t...
Tag this Judgment!Chelasami Ramiah Vs. Chelasami Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.363
1. According to the answer, returned by the Full Bench to the reference made by us, the petition must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar by Agent T. Rama Rao Vs. N.G. Narasinga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ180
1. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the application for execution is barred by limitation. It was presented within three years of a prior application which was signed and put into Court on behalf of the decree-holder by an agent. The question is whether that application was one presented in accordance with law, and that depends on whether the agent who presented it was one holding a general power of attorney and as such authorized to sign and present the petition under Section 37 of the repealed Code of Civil Procedure or one having a special power of attorney and not qualified to do so.2. The power of attorney under which the agent acted authorised him to present applications for execution, to realize the amount due to the decree-holder, to compromise the claim and to do all other acts relating to the excution of the decree. The lower Courts have held that the agent had a special power of attorney. In taking this view they were much influenced by the fac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »