Chennai Court January 1914 Judgments
Palani Chetty and ors. Vs. Rathina Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad10; 24Ind.Cas.597; (1914)26MLJ208
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a dispute about the possession of a Bhajana Mattam. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed an order under Section 145, Cr.P.C. to the effect that the 1st defendant is in possession and shall remain in possession till evicted in due course of law. The petitioners have filed this Revision Petition under Sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. and Section 15 of the Charter Act.2. As regards Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C., they are clearly not applicable (See Clause (3) of Section 435)3. Coming to Section 15 of the Charter Act, there are no doubt observations in the case, Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja (1912) M.W.N. 1154 . s.c. 23 M.L.J. 490 to the effect that 'it has never been customary to interfere' under Section 15 of the Charter Act ' except where it can be said that the Magistrate's order was passed without jurisdiction.' If I may say so with respect, that custom or practice is a very wholesome custom which should not be lightly departed from, espec...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Kothandapani Naidu Vs. Kuppusami Naiker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad86; 24Ind.Cas.766
1. The appellant claims to execute the decree which, he says, has been transferred to him by a person who is himself an assignee of the original decree-holders. The 4th respondent, who is the judgment-debtor, contends that the decree itself is fraudulent, that the transferor of the present applicant is bound to pay him a certain sum of money which he is entitled to set-off against the decree debt and the applicant who is the son-in-law of the transferor took the assignment with notice of his claim and that he had already instituted a suit against the transferor.2. The lower Court, without deciding any of the questions in issue between the parties, held that the assignment should not be recognised as it was made after notice of the suit by the 4th respondent. We think this order is not right. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge should decide whether the transfer is valid and the petitioner is entitled to execute the decree.3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Samandan Karkat Edathil Rayarappan Nambiar Vs. Malikandi Aketh Mayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad297(2); (1914)26MLJ267
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 590 of 1903 obtained a decree on his hypothecation deed for the sale of the properties mortgaged against the mortgagor and the appellant's predecessor-in-title who was a puisne mortgagee. The puisne mortgagee purchased the mortgagor's interest in a Judicial sale in execution of a decree obtained by him to which the plaintiff was a party. The mortgagee-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 590 of 1903 died and without bringing his representatives on record the plaintiff got the properties sold in execution of his decree. The appellant now applies in effect to be made a party and to set aside the sale on payment to the plaintiff of the amount due to him under the decree. He also alleged fraud. The Lower Courts hold that the application is barred by limitation. If the sale is a nullity so far as he is concerned, then the application is clearly not barred. According to the decisions of this Court, Ramasami v. Bagirathi I.L.R. (1883) M. 180 Krishnayya v. Unnissa Begam I.L...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarambal Ammal and Kamalambal Ammal Vs. Yogavanagurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad561; (1914)26MLJ315
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition put in by the plaintiffs, appellants in the Second Appeal No. 1333 of 1912 praying for the passing of a decree in accordance with the terms of a compromise signed by the two plaintiffs and by the 1st defendant. The first defendant though he has signed the compromise petition, opposed the application on the grounds (a) that he was induced to sign the compromise through undue influence exerted on him by the 2nd plaintiffs husband, (6) that the agreement was not the result of a bona fide compromise of doubtful claims but was really a sale of a portion of the 1st defendant's rights for a very low consideration and that the sale was also invalid for want of proper consideration and (c) that the compromise is further illegal as it is really an alienation of a religious office to persons legally incompetent to hold the office (see 17th para of the 1st defendant's affidavit, dated 2nd October 1913.)2. Having considered the affidavits on both sides, I don...
Tag this Judgment!V. Muthukumara Chetty Vs. Anthony Udayar and Thirty ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad296; (1915)ILR38Mad867
1. These Second Appeals arise out of suits instituted by the plaintiff against a number of ryots for rent of certain lands leased to them. The Zamindar of Ghandarvakota made a grant of these lands as well as of certain other properties evidenced by Exhibit N in the case. The grant (which was in 1901) was in favour of two persons, his wife Madurambal and his minor son. Mudurambal executed a lease, Exhibit I, in 1906 for a period of 15 years to the plaintiff in these suits. She died within a few months after the execution of the lease. Disputes arose on her death between her husband, the Zamindar who purported to act on behalf of his minor son and the plaintiff. There were criminal proceedings which were followed by two suits, one of them by the Zamindar on behalf of his son to set aside the lease and the other by the lessee to restrain the Zamindar from inter faring with his enjoyment under the lease. The former suit was dismissed in consequence of the Zamindar's default in obeying an o...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Velan and ors. Vs. Murugappa Velan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad272; 22Ind.Cas.826; (1914)26MLJ238
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was brought for the cancellation of a rent sale held at the instance of a receiver who represented the Melwaramdars of certain lands. The receiver as such Melwaramdar became the landlord of the plaintiffs and of the 1st defendant who were brothers. The rent sale was held on the footing that the 1st defendant was the tenant owning the Kudivaram right after notice to him under Section 39 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 (now superseded). The plaintiffs' contention is that the 1st defendant did not own the Kudivaram right on the date of notice under Section 39 that in a partition effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants about 1890, the plaint land and trees fell to the plaintiffs' share that the proceedings connected with that rent sale cannot bind the plaintiffs as they were not made parties to the said sale proceedings and they were not given notice under Section 39 of Rent Recovery Act and the notice gi...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusamy Padayachi and anr. Vs. Karuppudayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ285
Miller, J.1. Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Aiyar Vakil for the first respondent does not support the view of the case taken by the District Judge but argues that the land in question is not a part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, and contends also conceding that the position of the 2nd defendant is that of a ryot of old waste, that by virtue of the proviso to Section 153 of the Madras Estates Land Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is nevertheless not ousted. Mr. L.A. Govinda Raghava Aiyar, Vakil for the appellants accepting as the position of his clients that of a non-occupancy ryot, being a ryot of old waste, argues on the strength of Atchaparaju v. Krishnayackendralu : (1913)24MLJ402 that Section 157 nullifies the effect of the proviso to Section 153 which otherwise would, he concedes, be applicable to the facts of the case and so would save the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The District Judge has not decided the question whether the land is or is n...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Velan and anr. Vs. Murugappa Velan and Eighty-two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad837
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit was brought for the cancellation of a rent-sale held at the instance of a receiver who represented the melvaramdars of certain lands. The receiver as such melvaramdar became the landlord of the plaintiffs and of the first defendant who are brothers. The rent-sale was held on the footing that the first defendant was the tenant owning the kudivaram right and after notice to him under Section 39 of the Bent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 (now superseded). The plaintiffs' contention is that the first defendant did not own the kudivaram right on the date of notice under Section 39, that in a partition effected between the plaintiffs and the first defendant about 1890, the plaint land and trees fell to the plaintiffs' share, that the proceedings connected with that rent-sale cannot bind the plaintiffs as they were not made parties to the said sale proceedings and they were not given notice under Section 39 (Ren...
Tag this Judgment!iponnuswamy Padatachi and anr. Vs. Karupudayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.217
Miller, J.1. Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Iyer, Vakil for the 1st respondent, does not support the view of the case taken by the District Judge, but argues that the land in question is not a part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, and contends also, conceding that the position of the 2nd defendant is that of a ryot of old waste, that by virtue of the proviso to Section 153 of the Madras Estates Land Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is nevertheless not ousted. Mr. L. A. Govindaraghava Iyer, Vakil for the appellants, accepting the position of his clients as that of a non-occupancy ryot, being a ryot of old waste, argues on the strength of Chaganti Atchaparazu v. Raja Yelugoti Kristna Yachandrulavaru 19 Ind. Cas. 225 : 24 M.L.J. 402 : 13 M.L.T. 829 : (1913) M.W.N. 378. that Section 157 nullifies the effect of the proviso to Section 153 which otherwise would, he concedes, be applicable to the facts of the case and so would save the jurisdiction of the Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Kantipudi Somayya and anr. Vs. Khatya Begam Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad96; 24Ind.Cas.784
1. Following Syed Ajam Sahib v. Ananthanarayana Aiyar 8 Ind. Cas. 668 5 M. 95 : (1910) M.W.N. 766 : 8 M. L. 137 : 21 M.L.J. 202. and Second Appeal No. 308 of 1910, we reverse the decision of the lower Appellate Court and restore the Munsif s decree. The costs in the lower Appellate Court will be borne by the respective parties as directed by that Court. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 will pay the appellant's costs in this Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »