Chennai Court January 1913 Judgments
Venkataramana Iyer by Agent T. Rama Rao Vs. N.G. Narasinga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad134
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holding a general power of attorney and as such, authorised to sign and present the petition under Section 37 of the repealed Code of Civil Procedure or one having only a special power of attorney and not qualified to do so.2.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 realise the amount due to the decree-holder, to compromise the claim and to do all other acts relating to the execution of the decree. The lower Courts have held that the agent had only a special power of attorney. In taking this view they were much influence...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatramana Aiyar, by Aagent T. Rama Row Vs. N.G. Narasinga Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.135
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holding a general power-of-attorney and, as such, authorised to sign and present the petition under Section 37 of the repealed Code of Civil Procedure or one having only a special power-of-attorney and not qualified to do so.2.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 realise the amount due to the decree-holder, to compromise the claim and to do all other acts relating to the execution of the decree. The lower Courts have held that the agent had only a special power-of-attorney. In taking this view, they were much influen...
Tag this Judgment!Ravala Nagamma and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.699
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is for recovery, from the Secretary of State for India in Council, of money alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiff on account of water-cess, claimed to be due from him. The appellant contends that Article 16, Schedule II to the Limitation Act is applicable to this case, while the learned Government Pleader contends that Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864 is applicable. The decision of the question must depend on whether the cause of action on which the rent was based was some proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned Government Pleader has procured all the information available on the point. It appears that the plaintiff was himself the Village Munsif entitled to demand payment of the revenue due to Government; it does not appear that there was any notice under Section 8 of Act II of 1864 served on him. There was, therefore, no proceeding taken against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Adivi Sriramulu Puntulu Garu Vs. Pattaballa Jogiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ188
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This petition (C.R.P. No. 74 of 1912) and the connected petitions have arisen out of 4 suits brought for the Kattubadi on Inam lands held by Karnams. The District Munsif has given a perfunctory finding (a) no Kattubadi is due (b) that the claim for Kattubadi is barred as it was never paid before. Ramachandra v. Jagan Mohan I.L.R. (1891) M. 161.2. The mere fact that 'it was never paid before' cannot bar the suit for Kattubadi due on a land, if the suit is brought within 3 years of the date, when that particular year's Kattubadi fell due. It was only if the tenant had denied the landlord's title to get Kattubadi more than 12 years before suit, and had refused to pay it, basing the refusal on such denial of title in the landlord to recover it, that the landlord's claims would be barred (See Ramachandra v. Jagan Mohana I.L.R. (1891) M. 161. There is no evidence whatever in these cases that the defendants refused to pay Kattubadi in any year on the basis of a denial of ...
Tag this Judgment!Adivi Sreenivasa Pantulu Garu Vs. Palatala Jogiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.243
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The petition Civil Revision Petition No. 74 of 1912 and the connected petitions have arisen out of four suits brought for kattubadi on inam, lands held by karnams. The District Munsif has given a perfunctory finding that (a) kattubadi is due, (6) that the claim for kattubadi is barred as it was never paid before. Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana 15 M.K 161. The mere fact that it was never paid before cannot bar the suit for kattubadi due on a land if the suit is brought within three years of the dale when that particular year's kattubadi fell due. It was only if the tenant had denied the landlord's title to get kattubadi more than 12 years before suit and had refused to pay it, basing the refusal on such denial of title in the landlord to recover, that the landlord's claim would be barred. See Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana 15 M.K 161. There is no evidence whatever in these cases that the defendants refused to pay kattubadi in any year on the basis of a denial of the landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Seshachalam Chetty in No. 277 of 1912 and Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.663
ORDER1. In our opinion, the Magistrate is not shown to have been wrong in his conclusion that the places in respect of which the petitioners were required to take oat license were used for storing oil.2. It was conceded by the counter-petitioner that the notification of the 14th January 1908 declaring a trade in oil to be an offensive trade should, so far as we are concerned with it in this case, be deemed to lay down that the storing of oil is an offensive trade, and the question, therefore, is whether the petitioners occupied places used for storing oil. The evidence is that the petitioners are traders in oil, in considerable quantities which is kept by them in a godown; some stock of it may be kept in a part of the shop for the purpose of meeting the retail demand. The stock naturally varies in quantity and may at one time be not more than will suffice for a day or less and at another be enough for several days; but the place where the stock is kept is regularly used for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.K.R.K.M. Ramasami Chetty Vs. Lakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ231
1. An order was made and served on the petitioner directing him not to carry out a proposed marriage pending the disposal of the petition. In spite of that order, he had the marriage performed. On the day the petition was taken up for hearing, the Judge directed him to give security for Rs. 30,000 to appear on the adjourned date and to cause the appearance of another person. The order so far as the production of the other person is concerned is obviously wrong and is not supported before me. Under Section 43 Clause (4) Guardian and Wards Act the order may be enforced in the same manner as an injunction issued under the Civil Procedure Code. It has been decided in Kocheppa v. Sache Devi I.L.R. (1902) M. 494 that an order directing the person who has disobeyed the order for injunction to be detained in custody can be passed only on application by a party. The section itself does not make it a pre-requisite, and the decision is based on considerations which do not apply to a proceeding un...
Tag this Judgment!J. Subba Row Vs. J. Rama Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ155
Miller, J. 1. The plaintiff claimed in the suit out of which this appeal arises one-half of the income of the Jaghir which, it is admitted, is a pension within the meaning of the Pensions Act. The first question to be determined is whether the certificate by the Collector justifies the Court in entertaining the claim of the plaintiff and making the decree it has made. The certificate Exhibit G is, in the following terms. ' Jangamakoti Rama Rao is authorized to file a civil suit to establish the annual payment due to him from the net income of the Jaghir.' The certificate is granted in accordance with the orders of the Government contained in G.O. No. 668 Revenue dated 18-8-03. The appellant contends first that the certificate is to be considered as authorizing only a suit for maintenance and that ' payment due to the plaintiff from the net income' means the allowance which the first defendant as the manager of the Jaghir ought to have given him when he was managing it and that it does ...
Tag this Judgment!Avula Guruvaya and ors. Vs. Avula Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.212
Arnold White, C.J.1. It is conceded, on behalf of the appellant, that, unless it is established that Subrayudu and Padmanabham were brothers, the plaintiff's case that they are the nearest reversionary heirs of the 1st defendant's husband fails. The Subordinate Judge has found that these two were not brothers, but the sons of two brothers. On the evidence, I am not prepared to say that this finding is wrong.2. The question remains, are the plaintiffs entitled, in this suit, to set up the alternative case that, assuming they are not the nearest reversionary heirs, they can ask to have the adoption set aside?3. It is well settled that, in certain circumstances, a reversionary heir, who is not the nearest reversionary heir, is entitled to impeach the validity of an adoption. The law was laid down by the Privy Council in Rani Anand Kunwar v. Court of Wards 6 C.K 764 ; 8 C.L.R. 381; 8 I.A. 14.4. If the nearest reversionary heir refuses, without sufficient cause, to institute proceedings, or...
Tag this Judgment!Anantha Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Kunnanchankarath Sankaran Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ205
1. This case arises out of an application presented under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an execution sale of certain immoveable property, by a person who purchased the property from the judgment-debtor after the auction sale. The auction purchaser contested the application on the ground that the applicant was not a person entitled to make the application and that she did not pay into Court, before the expiration of 30 day's from the date of sale, the deposit of 5 percent, on the purchase money, and to the decree-holder the amount due to him under the decree. The District Munsif set aside the sale; but on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed his order, holding that a purchaser from the judgment-debtor subsequent to the auction sale is not one entitled to apply under the rule in question. He also made some observations calculated to throw doubt on the fact of the applicant's payment of 5 per cent, of the purchase money into Court and of the decree amount to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »