Chennai Court October 1913 Judgments
Ponnuswami Pillai Died and ors. Vs. Chokkalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ593
1. The District Munsif had the alleged offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, brought to his notice in the Course of the execution case No. 166 of 1911. He got such notice on the 18th July 1911 2. Execution proceedings are Judicial Proceedings; see Sheik Bahadur v. Eradatill Mellich (1910) 12 J.L.C. 45 We do not agree with the ruling in Hara Charan Mukerjee v. King Emperor I.L.R. (1905) C. 367 to the contrary. Execution case No. 166 came to an end on the 27th July 1911 when it was dismissed. The learned District Munsif took action under Section 476 of the Crl. P. Code on the 25th November 1911 in the course of a different judicial proceeding, namely, on an application (C. P. No. 594 of 1911) by the decree holder for grant of sanction to prosecute Counter-Petitioners. We think that under the Full Bench ruling in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor I.L.R. (1908) M. 49 the District Munsif's order under Section 476. Crl. Procedure Code is illegal and should be set aside.3. We think that, as...
Tag this Judgment!Vathiadath Ahamad Kutti Haji's daughter and Kandar Madathil Assanar's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad267; 24Ind.Cas.106; (1914)26MLJ523
1. We are of opinion that the contract mentioned in the first question which has been referred to us is not binding on the tenant if it is less favourable to him than Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and that the tenant is entitled to claim compensation according to the provisions of the Act.2. As regards the 2nd question, we are of opinion that, having regard to the question which the court had consider in Randu purayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan I.L.R. (1908) M. 1 there is no inconsistency between the Judgment in that case and the judgments in Kozhikot Sreemanavikraman v. Madathil Ananta Patter I.L.R. (1910) M. 61 and Paru Amma v. Moothoran : (1912)22MLJ221 . We are not prepared to say that the two last mentioned cases were not rightly decided....
Tag this Judgment!G. Seshamma Vs. B.V. Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad643
1. We are of opinion that, when a suit has abated against a particular defendant by reason of his legal representatives not having been brought on the record within the time limited by law and when the plaintiff thereupon withdraws his suit with permission to bring a fresh suit, such a permission can only empower him to bring the fresh suit against those defendants who were on the record on the date of the withdrawal and not against a defendant who had ceased to be on the record or against the legal representatives of a defendant; who was dead at the time of the withdrawal and whose said representatives had either not been brought on the record or had been removed from the record by an appellate order which set aside the order of the First; Court bridging them on record.2. As regards Perumal v. Karuppan : (1911)21MLJ574 the learned Judges were no doubt (if we may say so with respect) right in saying that the cause of action in that case survived as against the defendants other than the...
Tag this Judgment!Kochu Rabia Vs. Abdurahman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad589
ORDER1. The question involved in this appeal is whether Section 19 of the Malabar Compensation for tenants' Improvements Act (Madras Act I of 1900) affects the validity of an agreement which was entered into prior to the 1st January 1886 and by which agreement the parties agreed that compensation for improvements should be paid to the tenant on a certain basis or method of calculation. The District Judge differing from the Subordinate Judge held that such an agreement though entered into before the 1st January 1886 was not binding on the tenant. The question turns upon the true construction of Section 19 of the Act which provides that 'nothing in any contract made after the 1st day of January 1886 shall take away or limit the right of a tenant to make improvements and to claim compensation for them in accordance with the provisions of this Act.' The District Judge followed Kozhikot Sreemana Vikraman v. Modathil Ananta Patter I.L.R. (1911) Mad., 61 a decision of Benson and Krishnaswami ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lakshmi Narasayya Vs. S. P. Narasimhachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ577
ORDER1. The accused, who has been adjudged an insolvent, is charged by one of the creditors with having committed an offence under Section 103 of Act III of 1909, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act The complaint is filed before the Presidency Magistrate, who refers to us for decision the question whether he is entitled to try the accused for this offence.2. Under Section 104 of the Act, when the Insolvency Court is satisfied that there is ground to believe that the insolvent has been guilty of any offence under Section 103, notice may be issued to him to show cause why a charge or charges should not be framed against him, the Court may after hearing him, frame such charges as it thinks fit, and may proceed to try him and convict him if the offence is proved. The ordinary procedure for the trial of offences is made inapplicable by the same section to such trials. There is thus no doubt that proceedings against the insolvent are set in motion only if the Insolvency Court is satisfied that t...
Tag this Judgment!Thalagara Ramanne and ors. Vs. Kalagare Gangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1913
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ132
1. The District Judge finds that out of the sum of Rs. 1300 the price paid for the property, Rs. 1022 was to pay off a debt or debts which the widow was legally justified in paying out of the corpus of his son's estate, and that as regards the balance of Rs. 278, there was no justification for obtaining that money by sale of the land. The District Judge also finds that both sales were bona fide transactions and that the prices paid were not unreasonably low. These findings we accept but we do not think they justify the decree which the District Judge has made.2. The sale Exhibit IV for Rs. 700 is clearly wholly good as found by the District Judge and the reversioners have no claim to recover the property. The only ground suggested in support of the decree is inadequacy of price but the District Judge's finding is that the price was not unreasonable.3. As regards the sale for Rs. 600, the sum of Rs. 322 is binding, so to phrase it, on the reversion and Rs. 278 is not binding; but the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Chetti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1913
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ928
ORDER1. In our opinion the order of the Sub-Magistrate which we are asked to revise, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code and must be considered to be passed without jurisdiction. Section 144 applies to temporary orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, and it is distinctly provided that, except when specially extended by a notification of Government no such order shall remain in force for more than 2 months. Neither in the present order itself nor in the records referred to as forming the basi3 of it, is there any indication of urgency and the order itself does not set forth the material facts of the case as required by law. The order purports to review a previous order prohibiting the Pathiyar procession for two months from 3rd July 1913. It is in effect a second extension for 2 months of an order dated the 2nd May 1913 prohibiting the procession.2. It is open to the District Magistrate to address Government for issue of a certific...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Chetty Vs. Abdul Khader Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.11; (1914)26MLJ449
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The third defendant is the appellant before us. When the plaintiff attached plaint properties in execution of the decree which he had obtained in O.S. No. 20 of 1897 on the file of the District Court of Salem as the properties of his judgment-debtor (the present 2nd defendant), the present 1st defendant put in a claim as the owner of the properties. His claim was allowed and the properties were released on the 18th December 1902. The present suit was brought on the 21st October 1903 (within the one year allowed by law) by the plaintiff to establish his right to attach the plaint properties as the property of his judgment-debtor, the present 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant, the appellant before us, purchased the plaint properties from the claimant (namely, the 1st defendant) on the 29th December 1902, that is 11 days after the order on the claim petition in the 1st defendant's favour. He however, never took actual possession of the lands and merely got a rent deed,...
Tag this Judgment!Zainab Bee Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.513
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell, sitting in insolvency on two applications which by consent were heard together. The first was an application dated the 4th May 1912 by the Official Assignee in the insolvency of a firm carrying on business as P.M. Enayattulla Sait & Co. He asked by his notice of motion that there should be at declaration that a certain sale-deed dated the 1st October 1910 executed by the insolvent in favour of his wife, who is the appellant before us, is void as either a fraudulent preference under Section 56 or a voluntary transfer under Section 55 of the Insolvency Act. The other application was an application by the appellant in which she asked that the insolvent should be declared trustee on her behalf with respect to a sum of Rs. 21,000. It is conceded by Mr. Chamier that there has been some misapprehension as regards the amount, and that it ought really to be Rs. 14,000. The notice of motion by the appellant also asks...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthalidatt Narayanan Moothad and ors. Vs. the CochIn Sirkar Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ621
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this case is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in ordering the name of the 1st defendant as representing the Rajah of Cochin to be struck off from record, He made this order because he was of opinion that Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code applied and that the Rajah of Cochin could not accordingly be sued. It is admitted that the consent of the Governor-General in Council has not been obtained and that if the section applies the Subordinate Judge's order is correct.2. It was argued before me however, that in this case the Rajah of Cochin was sued not as such Rajah, but as trustee of the temples referred to in the plaint and that Section 86 applies only in cases where a Prince or Chief is sued in his capacity as such Prince or Chief. I am unable to accede to this argument. I see nothing in Section 86 to warrant a Prince or Chief being brought on the record except on the terms referred to in Section 86. The section seems to me to be exhaustive with ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »