Chennai Court October 1913 Judgments
N. Venkataramier and anr. Vs. Vaithilinga Thambiran the Dakshinam Karw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad655
Miller, J.1. This was a suit instituted under Section 213 of the Estates Land Act before a Deputy Collector decreed by him and dismissed by the District Judge on appeal. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies to the High Court from the decree of the District Judge, and is based on a contention that Section 192 applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code only to the procedure in proceedings authorised by the Act, and not so as to give an appeal which the Act does, not give.2. In my opinion, this objection must fail, The language of section ]92 of the Act does not support it, and there are two cases under the repealed Rent Recovery Act of 1865 which point the other way. Ganne Kotappa v. Venkataramiah (1890)10 M.L.J., 398 and Veeraswamy v. Manager, Pittapur Estate I.L.R., (1903) Mad., 518.3. Reliance was placed on the recent case in the Privy Council Rangoon Botatoung Co., Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon I.L.R., (1913) Calc., 21, in which their Lordships held that no a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Venkataramier and anr. Vs. Vythilinga Thambiran Avergal the Dakshin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad135; 24Ind.Cas.754
Miller, J.1. This was a suit instituted under Section 213 of the Estates Land Act before a Deputy Collector, decreed by him and dismissed by the District Judge on appeal. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies to the High Court from the decree of the District Judges, and is based on a contention that Section 192 applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code only to the procedure in proceedings authorized by the Act, and not so as to give an appeal which the Act does not give.2. In my opinion, this objection must fail. The language of Section 392 of the Act does not support it, and there are two cases under the repealed Rent Recovery Act of 1865 which point the other way : Ganne Kotappa v. Venkataramiah 10 M.L.J. 398. and Veerasami v. Manager, Pittapur Estate 26 M.K 518 : 13 M.L.J. 296.3. Reliance was placed on the recent case of Rangoon Botatoung Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Rangoon 16 Ind. Cas. 188 : 39 I.A. 197 in the Privy Council in which their Lordships held that no a...
Tag this Judgment!Vakkiyil Puthan Veettil Kelu Nair and ors. Vs. Vakkiyil Puthan Veetil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ586
Sadasiva Aiyar J.1.This is an appeal against an appellate order passed in execution proceedings. The appellants are defendants Nos 1, 2 and 4 to 9 and 11. The respondents are plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, the 3rd defendant and plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3.2. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 applied for execution on behalf of themselves and of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat in O.S. No. 25 of 1906. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 were minors when that suit was decreed in favor of themselves and in favor of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 formed a Thavazhi having separate Thavazhi property but not divided from the common Tarwad of which the 1st defendant is the Karnavan. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are senior in age to plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 who are females, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 2 being male members of the Thavazhi. The objections taken by the defendants to the execution of the decree at the instance of the 4th and 5th plaintiffs may be summarised thus:(a...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Srinivasa Row Vs. Pichai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ567
Miller, J.1. In this case the District Munsif has made an order prohibiting a second grade pleader from appearing for the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 32 of 1913 on his file.2. The pleader had appeared and acted in a proceeding in the Magistrate's Court under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and had there obtained an order for his client maintaining his possession until he should be disturbed by a Civil Court. O.S. No. 32 of 1913 was instituted nearly three years after the date of this order, by the unsuccessful party in the Magisterial proceedings, and the pleader filed the plaint on their behalf and appeared for the purpose of conducting the case but on the defendant's (his former client's) objection has been prohibited from doing so.3. The District Munsif relies on Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice as justifying his order, and in my opinion, he is, in substance, right. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar contends that this rule being in the Civil Rules of Practice has no application when one of the proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Annie Besant Vs. G. Narayaniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ661
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have already dealt with the question whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to grant the relief which he has given in this suit. The question remains whether his judgment should be upheld. The more important dates are as follow:The defendant is the President of the Theosophical Society and the plaintiff has been a member of the Society since 1882. About the end of 1908 the plaintiff was appointed Assistant Corresponding Secretary of the Esoteric Section of the Society and he and his family took up their residence at the headquarters of the Society, Adyar, in a house which he occupied rent free. In September 1909 he removed his two minor cons, Krishnamoorti and Nityananda from school, and they received gratuitous instruction at Adyar from one Mr. C.W. Leadbeater and others. The boys were then aged about 14 and 11. The defendant first became acquainted with them in December 1909. On the 6th March 1910, the plaintiff signed a letter (Ex. A.) by which he constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Chella Narasiah Vs. Sontan Obbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ601
Tyabji, J.1. I will assume that the District Munsif was right in holding that the respondent's application before him, dated 18th January 1911 was an execution petition, satisfying the requirements of Order XXI Rule 11 Clause (1).2. It seems to me however that the District Munsif could not in that case make an order for rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. He has omitted to notice that an order for rateable distribution under that section can be made only in favour of one who prior to the receipt of the assets in Court has applied to the Court for execution of his decree. In this case the assets were received in Court (at the instance of the present petitioners), on the 9th January 1911. The application for rateable distribution by the present respondent was not made till the 18th January 1911. See Krishnasankar v. Chandrasankhar I.L.R. (1880) B. 198 Be joy Singh Dhuduria v. Hukum Chand I.L.R. (1902) C. 548. Durga Churn Rai Chowdhury v. Manomani Dasi I....
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Srinivasa Rau Vs. Pichai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad650
Miller, J.1. In this case the District Munsif has made an order prohibiting a second-grade pleader from appearing for the plaintiffs, in Original Suit No. 32 of 1913 on his file.2. The pleader had appeared and acted in a proceeding in the Magistrate's Court under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and had there obtained an order for his client maintaining his possession until he should be disturbed by a Civil Court. Original Suit No. 32 of 1913 was instituted nearly three years after the date of this order by the unsuccessful party in the magisterial proceedings, and the pleader filed the plaint on their behalf and appeared for the purpose of conducting the case, but on the defendant's (his former client's) objection has been prohibited from doing so.3. The District Munsif relies on Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice as justifying his order, and in my opinion he is, in substance, right. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar contends that this rule being in the Civil Rules of Practice has no ap...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ613
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the instrument which has been submitted to us is a mortgage deed within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899). If so it is chargeable with stamp duty as such under Article 40 of the 1st Schedule to the Act. Mr. Barton has argued that the instrument in question is a declaration of trust and that it is chargeable as such under Article 64. At the conclusion of his argument he suggested that the instrument might be construed as a letter of hypothecation accompanying a bill of exchange, and therefore fell under the 2nd exemption to Article 40.2. A mortgage deed is defined for the purposes of the Stamp Act, and for the purposes of that Act only, as including ' every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers or creates to, or in favor of another, a right over...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnan and ors. Vs. Kondam Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ169
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These Second Appeals have arisen out of suits brought against the same two defendants. The plaintiffs in these suits are the tenants in a shortriam village called Talambur in the Chingleput Taluq. The plaintiff's case in each suit is that the shrotriam Inam comes under the definition of ' Estate' in the Madras Estates Land Act, and the plaintiff is the occupancy tenant of the lands entered in the A schedule to the plaint and that the plaintiff is entitled to demand from the defendants a pattah containing the terms stated in the 'model' pattah forming the B schedule to each plaint. The defence of the two defendants who are shrotriamdars, is that the plaintiffs have no occupancy rights, that the defendants own both the Melvaram and the Kudivaram rights in the lands in the plaint village, that the village is not an ' estate' under the Madras Estates Land Act, that the provisions of that Act do not apply to the suit lands and that the plaintiffs are not therefore entit...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt Abkari and Separate Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad646
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the instrument which has been submitted to us is a mortgage-deed within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899). If so it is chargeable with stamp duty as such under Article 40 of the first schedule to the Act. Mr. Barton has argued that the instrument in question is a declaration of trust and that it is chargeable as such under Article 64. At the conclusion of his argument he suggested that the instrument might be construed as a letter of hypothecation accompanying a bill of exchange and therefore fell under the second exemption to Article 40.2. A mortgage-deed is defined for the purposes of the Stamp Act, and for the purposes of that Act only, as including 'every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced, by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers, or creates, to or in favour of, anothe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »