Chennai Court February 1914 Judgments
C. Venkatasubbaramiah Vs. Nambura Ramiah Sethi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad66; 24Ind.Cas.622
1. The petition is argued first on the ground that the suit, brought without the leave of the Court against a Receiver, was unsustainable.2. This contention is sanctioned by abundant authority, including the decisions of Kamatchi Animal v. Sundaram Ayyar 26 M. 492. and Ramalinga Chetty v. Anantha Chariar 18 Ind Cas. 122 : 24 M.L.J. 350 : 13 M.L.T. 303 : (1913) M.W.N. 287, to cite only those of this High Court.3. It is argued for the respondents that this objection to the suing of a Receiver without leave is not one to the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is brought, and that, therefore, though any decree passed may be unsustainable, the proper course for the Appellate Court to take is to set the decree, passed in the absence of leave, aside and remand the case in order that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to obtain the necessary leave before proceeding with the litigation. Sitting as a Court of revision, I should in any event hesitate before adopting such a suggestion ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbaiyar Vs. Subbarathinam Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad624; (1914)27MLJ134
1. Before disposing of this Second Appeal, we consider it desirable to have findings on the following questions:(1) Whether before the receipt of Exhibit VII by the 1st defendant, Doraisawmy Iyengar had agreed to receive payment of the amount due on the hypothecation bond from the usufructuary mortgagees under Exhibit VI, whether he had agreed to release the 1st defendant and whether he had received any payment from the usufructuary mortgagees or from the 1st defendant?(2) Whether before the receipt of Exhibit VII the 1st defendant had entered into any and what contract, agreement or undertaking with Doraisawmy Iyengar with reference to the hypothecation debt? and (3) Whether any and what payments were made to Doraisawmy Iyengar before the decree in O.S. No. 235 of 1900 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kulitalai ?2. The findings will be on the evidence on record.3. The finding is to be returned within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Time for objectio...
Tag this Judgment!Suppan Asari and ors. Vs. Vannia Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.467; (1914)27MLJ110
1. The suit is brought by certain plaintiffs named on behalf of themselves, their caste, the Karnams, and the Villais. The lower courts have found that they have been using the path A. B. which runs on the northern side of the Kamatchiamman temple in Tinnevelly and leads to the bathing ghat and the temple for a long time and therefore they have acquired a customary right to use it. The main objection that is raised in second appeal is that a caste cannot acquire a customary right. It is argued that every custom must be local and must be alleged to be confined to a village or district. According to English law this may be so. But the question is when it is found that certain castes have been exercising a certain right whether a legal origin cannot be found for it. For it is clear law that when a right has been enjoyed time out of mind-in this case the origin of the right is not shown a legal origin if possible will be presumed. If the right is claimed with reference to a defined localit...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ganapathi Mudaliar Vs. Krishnamachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad286; 24Ind.Cas.187; (1914)27MLJ213
Miller, J.1. Dealing first with the question whether the plaintiff was represented in the former suit O.S. No. 5 of 1886, and the execution proceedings which followed on the decree in that suit, I find no difficulty in accepting the District Judge's conclusion on that point.2. The only evidence in the plaintiff's favour consists of two facts, first, in such of the documents relating to the execution proceedings as have been preserved, the date given as that of the decree is that of the decree against the father of plaintiff and not that of the final decree against the plaintiff and his brother and his father; that it is suggested shows that the decree against plaintiff was never executed. But the two decrees were identical and the one was substituted for the other after the appointment of a new guardian for the plaintiff and his brother, and the failure of that guardian to put in a defence. The date is therefore pro bably a mere mistake. Secondly the name of the plaintiff's father in s...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnasawmi Chetty, Minor by His Next Friend, Velayudam Chetty Vs. Ratn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad683; 24Ind.Cas.135; (1914)27MLJ388
1. A suit was brought to set aside a will as a forgery. The plaintiff who was a minor by his next friend and the 2nd defendant who was also a minor by his guardi; n applied to the Court for leave to compromise the suit on the terras set forth in a Razinamah. As it appeared to the District Munsif that the compromise was fit and proper and for the benefit of the minors the Court gave its sanction, and with the consent of the parties passed a decree in terms of the Razinamah. The decree contained the following words :--'It is ordered as follows,' and it then set forth the terms of the Razinamah according to which the plaintiff was to pay Rs. 2,750 to the defendants. The defendants now apply to recover this amount by execution of the said decree. Various objections are raised by the plaintiff in Second Appeal.' It is first contended that there is no decree at all and even if there is one it is only a declaratory decree which cannot be executed. It is argued, that according, to the Civil Pr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Paramananda Nadar Vs. Karunakara Doss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad387(1); (1914)27MLJ617
ORDER1. The complaint in this case was preferred by the present petitioner purporting to act in virtue of an express authorisation by the Municipal Secretary to whom the powers of the Chairman under Section 280 District Municipalities Act are said to have been delegated under Section 39 A. It is clearly not competent for the Municipal Council to withdraw the complaint and the complainant has not withdrawn it-2. We set aside the order of acquittal passed under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code and direct the Magistrate to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Henry Moberly Vs. the Municipal Council of Cuddalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad879
Ayling, J.1. It is not contended before us that the payment of profession tax to the Kodaikanal Municipality will entitle Mr. Moberly to the benefit of Section 60 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, unless the same is legally due. The sole question for decision is therefore whether Mr. Moberly should be deemed to have held the appointment of District and Sessions Judge within the Kodaikanal Municipality during his stay in the limits thereof from April 30th to July 1st, 1911.2. There is no dispute about the facts. Mr. Moberly was the District and Sessions Judge posted to the South Arcot district. He came to Kodaikanal to spend the annual recess, resided there for sixty days, drew his pay there and on various days during that period estimated at fourteen or fifteen in number 'did some administrative and quasi-judicial work there.' He did no strictly judicial work.3. The point is not altogether free from doubt, but after consideration, I think the requirements of Section 53 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Gramani Vs. Tangavelu Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad362; (1915)ILR38Mad883
Oldfield, J.1. The first of the two cases, on which the defendant has relied, Sultry Kurdeppa v. Goondakull Nagireddi (1871) 6 M.H.C.R. 71 can be dismissed shortly, because at its date 'movable property' was not defined for the purpose of registration as it now is.2. The second, Seeni Chettiar v. Santhanathan Chettiar I L.R. (1897) Mad. 58 was decided after the amendment of the definition in 1871, though without explicit reference to it; and it was held that an instrument authorising the enjoyment and removal of trees, grass, and other produce in a tank bed for a period of four years for a consideration of Rs. 3,400 required registration. Now, although a right to the juice of trees was not conveyed by that instrument, its terms indicating that no juice bearing trees were in question, yet it resembled Exhibit A in the present case to the extent that, the trees being referred to in the judgment as timber, it dealt with movable property as it is at present defined. That however was not ho...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasachariar Vs. Gopalan Minor by His Father and Guardian Ramasami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad637(2); (1914)26MLJ365
1. The judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the debts in respect of which the certificate is prayed for did not form the property of the deceased but very probably they belong to one of the persons who oppose the grant of the succession certificate to the appellant. We are of opinion that the question whether the debts belonged to the deceased is not a matter to be decided on this application. We agree with the decision in Baikashi v. Parbhu Keval I.L.R. (1903) B. 119 which has been followed in A.A.O. No. 42 of 1906 by Benson and Wallis JJ. We are unable to agree with the opinion of the Chief Justice to the contrary in Radha Rani Dassi v. Brindabun Chundra Rasack I.L.R. (1897) C. 320. The order of the Lower Court is therefore reversed and the District Judge is directed to restore the application to his file and dispose of it according to law. Costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the final order....
Tag this Judgment!Kanagammal and anr. Vs. Panchapakesa Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad256; (1914)26MLJ343
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners. The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the minor 2nd plaintiff. Their application to the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis to obtain reliefs of future maintenance and recovery of arrears of maintenance was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. The total value of the reliefs claimed by them was Rs. 11,700. The first plaintiff gave the value of the properties belonging to her as Rs. 327 and the value of the properties belonging to the minor 2nd plaintiff as nil. The Rs. 327 worth of moveables was of course not sufficient to pay the Court fee stamps on the reliefs worth Rs. 11,700, the Court fee required being Rs. 535. The Lower Court did not go into the question whether the plaintiff's pauperism was established but it rejected the application on the ground that the requirements of Order 33, Rule 5, had not been complied with by the petitioners. That Rule 5 says that the Court should reject a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »