Chennai Court February 1917 Judgments
Swaminatha Mudali and ors. Vs. M. Saravana Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad383; (1917)33MLJ370
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In these 61 connected second appeals the appellants are the principal defendants in the suits. The suits were brought in ejectment, the appellants being treated as having been sub-tenants from year to year of persons who owned rights in the lands as grantees of lease rights under the East India Company under a grant of 1801; that grant being a grant of lease rights for 99 years. After that grant expired in January 1900 the plaintiffs became direct lessees of the Government (from the date of the expiry of the prior grant) another term of 99 years. The prior grant of 1801 is evidenced by the indenture Exhibit P. while the new grant of 1904 is evidenced by the indenture Exhibit A.2. The following facts may be set out to understand the contentions on both sides:The East India Company claimed to be owners of the lands in dispute in January 1901. It appears from the Chingleput Manual that in 1760 a grant was made to the East India Company of the Chingleput District by th...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jagannadha Mudaliar, Receiver, Appointed by the District Court of t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad636; 42Ind.Cas.718
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These second appeals have arisen out of similar suits brought by the Receiver of the Kalahasti Estate for the recovery of arrears of rent due from the tenants of different holdings in Madanambedu village in the Kachinad Taluq of the said Estate in respect of Faslis 1319 to 1821.2. The legal questions (or questions of con. struction of documents) arising in these second appeals are: 35 Ind. Gas. 329. whether the defendants are entitled to remission for Fasli 1319 on account of savi, 13 M. L. J. 377.: whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge special rates for garden crops raised by the defendants with the aid of the water of the wells dug at the tenant's Own expense; 5 Ind: Cas. 911. whether the plaintiff is entitled to make any charge for a second crop raised on wet lands by the defendants, and 15 M. L. J. 292. whether in ten of these suits brought against ten sets of defendants, the questions relating to remission for savi, to special rates for garden crops and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kayaniyil Kunhamad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad562; 39Ind.Cas.990
1. The Joint Magistrate has misapprehended the meaning of Section 8 of Act II of 1864. This does not require that the demand in writing' (referred to by the Joint Magistrate as the 'warrant,') should be shown to the defaulter before or at the time of distraint: but merely that it should be 'produced.' This simply means that the distrainer should have it in his possession at the time of distraint, and should show it as his authority to any one interested in the attached property who may be present and disposed to question the legality of his action.2. In the present case there is evidence that the adhigari had the demand in writing in his possession at the time of distraint: and no question has been asked of the prosecution witnesses (so far as respondent's Counsel can show) even tending to suggest that any of the respondents asked him to produce it.3. The view we have taken above is in accordance with that of the learned Judges in Marakkar, In re 30 Ind. Cas. 159 ; 29 M.L.J. 60.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramalinga Annavi Vs. Narayana Annavi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)42MLJ504
1. Following Wajid Alt Shah v. Nawal Kishore, (1895) A. W. N. 63 8 Ind. Dec. 461, and Gangadhar Karmukar v. Shekharbusini Dasya 35 Ind. Cas. 348, we bold that the time for obtaining a copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed should be deducted though the copy is not required by law to be filed with the review application. The eases of this Court cited on appellant's behalf do not deal directly with that portion of Section 12 of the Limitation Act which applies to review applications under the Civil Procedure Code and the inferences which the appellant's learned Vakil wishes us to draw as logically following from, dicta (partly obiter) found in those decisions which deal with appeals allowed under the provisions of special Acts cannot override the plain language of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.2. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 1 to 3....
Tag this Judgment!Nallasivan Pillai Vs. N. Ramalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad398; 41Ind.Cas.305; (1917)32MLJ402
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner Nallasivan Pillai presented an application under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879 against a Second Grade Pleader, Ramalingam Pillai, to the District Court of Tinnevelly on the ground that the said Vakil whom he had engaged to conduct an execution was guilty of improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty in the matter of that execution.2. Section 13 relates to the power of the High Court to suspend a pleader or Mukhtear and has clearly no application. Taking it that Section 13 is a mistake for Section 14 even then a charge of unprofessional conduct in the discharge of professional duty made against a pleader can be enquired into only by the presiding officer of the. Court in which the pleader practises. The second Grade pleader, Ramalingam Pillai, having no right to practice in the District Court and the execution matter in which the alleged misconduct took place relating to a decree of the Tinnevelly Sub Court on...
Tag this Judgment!Doraisami Padayachi and anr. Vs. Vaidyalinga Padayachi (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1145; (1917)33MLJ46
Wallis, C.J.1. The answer to the Full Bench reference being against him, Mr. Kuppusami Aiyar for the appellant has relied on another of the grounds taken here and in the lower Appellate Court, that time did not run between the 8th March, 1906 the date of the reference to arbitration and 31st October 1910, when it is alleged the arbitration proceedings came to an end by the death of the arbitrator. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act provided that 'if any person who has made such a contract (to refer to arbitration) and has refused to perform it, sues in respect of any subject which he has contracted to refer, the existence of such a contract shall bar the suit.' As to this I agree with Richards, J., one of the referring Judges in Ram Kumar Singh v. Jagmohan Singh I.L.R. (1910) A. 315 that the institution of a suit after the contract to refer is sufficient refusal to perform such a contract to bar the suit under the section. The result of this provision when it was in force was, it se...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkam Seshamma and anr. Vs. Chikkam Ammiraju and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad33
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. It has been found by both courts that the deed in question was obtained by coercion, the coercion consisting in a threat by the fifth witness for the plaintiffs to his wife and son that he would commit suicide if they did not execute the document.2. It is easy to set up such a defence and the evidence in support of it should therefore be very closely scrutinized before it is held to be made out. Here it has been found as a fact and we are not at liberty to interfere with the finding on second appeal.3. The case now comes before us on a Letters Patent Appeal owing to a difference of opinion between Sadasiva Ayyar and Moore, JJ., as to whether the fact as found amounted to coercion within the meaning of Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act.4. The point mainly argued before us was that suicide was not an 'act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code' within the meaning of the section. With this I cannot agree. At common law suicide was a form of homicide. 'Homicide pro...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Sahib and ors. Vs. Hassan Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.184
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the prevailing judgment of Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar affirming the judgment of the District Judge of South Canara, Mr. Justice Tyabji dissenting.2. The parties are Muhammadans and the suit was brought by the plaintiff for partition of the suit properties which, he alleged, belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and the defendants. The parties are descendants of one Abdul Razak, whose four sons executed a partition deed in 1818. Their family residence was at Manki in North Canara, but the third brother Hussain Sahib with the assistance of the 4th brother Hammed Sahib started business at Souda in South Canara. That business has been carried on down to the present time by the two brothers and their descendants. Various properties had been acquired in the name of one or other of the senior members of the family and all the members of the family have been maintained out of the income of properties and the profits of the business. The accoun...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Setupati Avergal Alias Muthuramalinga Setupati Averg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad400; 43Ind.Cas.164
1. The Subordinate Judge held that these appeals along with others already disposed of by us were concluded by the decision of this Court in Raja Rajeswara Dorai v. Arunachellam Chettiar 19 Ind. Cas. 596 He has not considered the special allegations as to the continuance of undue influence contained in the pleadings in these appeals. In the plaint, it is stated that 'the Dewan Trustee, Rao Bahadur Venkata Ranga Aiyar, old and infirm as he was, was also under the domination and influence of the lessees and particularly of Arunachellam Chettiar. Arunachellam Chettiar became more and more powerful and the position of the Dewan more and more difficult and dependent. In these circumstances, the Dewan Trustee had no independent course left to him but to follow what the lessees wanted.' The suggestion is that the alienation made in these various suits were due to the influence of the person above mentioned. There can be no doubt that the trustee ought to have taken steps to set aside the deed...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Mohideen Kadirshaw Maraikar Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad206; 45Ind.Cas.67
1. The first question in this case relates to an order passed by an Official Receiver upon the claim of a creditor of an insolvent to rank as a secured creditor under an hypothecation bond which was disputed by another creditor. The Official Receiver received oral and documentary evidence and held that the bond was supported by consideration and was not fraudulent. His suocessor-in-office seeks to impeach the transaction notwithstanding this decision.2. By virtue of Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, and rules of this Court made thereunder, an Official Receiver has power (6) to frame Schedules and to admit or to reject proofs of creditors, and (f) to hear and to determine any unopposed or ex parts application. Section 24(1) directs the Court to frame a schedule of creditors and the debts proved by them, and Section 25 prescribes the ordinary procedure for proof of debts. Under these provisions all persons alleging themselves to be creditors are required to produce evide...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »