Chennai Court October 1919 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
idumba Parayan and ors. Vs. Pethi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ695
1. The application for execution arose out of a partition decree. Some of the members of the family sued their co-parceners for partition and sought to set aside certain alienations in favour of strangers. The decree gave the plaintiffs their share : The Court found, that the alienation impeached was binding upon the members of the family to the extent of about Rs. 800 and odd and directed that the plaintiffs do obtain possession of the property in the possession of the alienees after paying a sum of Rs. 400 and odd. in terms and in effect, this portion of the decree was one for redemption. The final decree does not however say that in case the money is not paid within the time fixed viz., 10-7-1916 the suit for possession of the property shall stand dismissed. Nor does it say that the right to recover possession on subsequent payment is barred to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not pay the amount within the time stipulated. They subsequently applied for possession of the property a...
Agnihotram Jagannadha Charyulu Vs. Sri Raja Bommadevara Satyanarayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ706
Spencer, J.1. The appellant, who purchased the holding of a ryot at a sale held under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Madras Estates Land Act (Madras Act I of 1908) brought this suit to have it declared that the order of the Deputy Collector setting aside the sale for irregularities in the issue of notice, on a motion made by the landholder who brought the holding to sale, was ultra vires and void. The suit was instituted in an ordinary Civil Court. The District Munsif who tried the suit held that as a Judge of a Civil Court he had jurisdiction to entertain it, but that no suit lay in consequence of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 92(3) Civil Procedure Code. The Sub-Judge, who heard the appeal agreed with him on the point that the suit was not maintainable, and held that it was also barred by the rule of res judicata. I have no doubt that they were both wrong on this point.2. If the Deputy Collector had held a sale of the ryot's property in execution of a decree for rent passed by ...
Rahim Unnissa Begam and ors. Vs. M.a Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ266
1. The respondent obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 43 of 1913 in the District Court of Chingleput against the assets of a Mahomedan lady named Rahimatunnissa Begum in the hands of the defendants, and in execution attached certain immoveable properties as belonging to the deceased judgment-debtor. Rahimatunnissa Begam's father Abdul Razack put in a claim petition alleging that the property belonged to him exclusively, and that his daughter had no interest in it. Abdul Razack having died the present appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. The sale deed for the property admittedly stands in the name of Abdul Razack, her father. The District Judge dismissed the claim petition and allowed execution to issue. Hence this appeal. In O.S. No. 12 of 1909, in the District Court of Chingleput the judgment-debtor brought a suit against her father and his alienees for recovery of these properties on the allegation that the sale deed was benami for her and that she was the ...
idumbu Parayan and ors. Vs. Pethu Reddy and anr. and Senni Parayan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.451
1. The application for execution arose out of a partition decree Some, of the members of the family sued their co-parceners for partition and sought to set aside certain alienations in favour of strangers. The decree gave the plaintiffs their share The Court found that the alienation impeached was binding upon the members of the family to the extant of about Rs. 800 and odd and directed that the plaintiffs do obtain possession of the property in the possession of the alienees after paying a sum of Rs. 400 and odd In terms and in effect, this portion of the decree was ore for redemption. The time fixed, viz., 10th July 1916, the suit for possession of the property shall stand dismissed. Nor does it say that the right to recover possession on subsequent payment is barred to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not pay the amount within the time stipulated. They subsequently applied for possession of the property after paying into Court the amount which was ordered to be paid. The Courts be...
Rahim-un-nissa Begam and ors. Vs. M.A. Srlnivasa Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.565
1. The respondent obtained a money decree in Original Suit No. 43 of 1913, in the District Court of Chingleput against the assets of a Muhammadan lady named Rahimat-un-nissa Batram in Ilia hands of the defendants, and in execution attached certain immoveable properties belonging to the deceased judgment-debtor. Rahimat-un-nissa Begam's father Abdul Razak put in a claim petition alleging that the property belonged to him, exclusively, and that his daughter bad no interest in it. Abdul Razak having died, the present appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. The sale-deed for the property admittedly stands in the name of Abdul Razak, her father. The District Judge dismissed the claim petition and allowed execution to issue. Hence this appeal. In Original Suit No. 12 of 1909, in the District Court of Chingleput the judgment-debtor brought a suit against her father and his alienees for recovery of these properties on the allegation that the sale-deed was benami for her...
Gopala Aiyar and ors. Vs. Krishnasawmy Iyer Alias and Appa Aiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.473
ORDERBurn, J.1. This is an application to revise an order made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on 1st July 1919. There are in fact two orders, the first is the one contemplated by Clause (1) of the section and the second is an order of attachment and the appointment of a Receiver, which purports to have been made under Clause (4), proviso (2), of the section. Both orders are called in question. The defendants are the four co trustees of a temple. Three of them are on one side and one on the other. The former will be referred to as party No. 2 and the latter as party No. 1. The first move was made by party No. 2 by a petition for action under Section 144, 'Criminal Procedure Code. This was disposed of by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate by orders passed on 23rd January 1919 and 27th June 1919. Party No. 1 was restrained from interfering with the temple and its properties. The hearing was adjourned to 10th July 1919 for production of ...
In Re: K. Venkata Row, First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ58
ORDER1. Mr. K. Venkata Rao, 1st grade pleader in the District Court of Bellary has been called upon to show cause why he should not be dealt with under Section 13(b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act for having advised one Hulkiyal Hanumappa who had applied to be appointed guardian of his minor daughter called Nilavva alias Thimmava, to enter into an agreement with two persons, namely, Hanumantha Reddi and Sunkunna to the effect that in return for their services in standing as sureties they should receive a certain portion of the minor's income, namely, one-half of the interest accruing on all Government bonds and Rangoon Debenture loans Rs. 16,000, the property of the minor, during her minority, knowing that such arrangement was highly detrimental to the interests of the said minor and that he further presented the security bond drawn up in accordance with the above-mentioned agreement to the District Court of Bellary and obtained there for the said Court's sanction.2. The facts ...
In Re: Nadamuni Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.49
ORDER1. The question in this case is whether a person who has obtained a license for storing timber is not bound to take the permission of the Municipality for putting up a shed over it.2. There was a licence given for selling or storing timber to the petitioner. Apparently in the year 1908, he applied to Mr. Lloyd, the then President of the Municipality, for a license to erect a shed in the timber-yard. Mr. Lloyd said in Exhibit I, 'the under-signed will not insist on the Pandal license fees being paid on the sheds used in their depots, as the license granted under Section 325, Act III of 1904, for using a place for the storage of timber covers, in the opinion of the undersigned, sheds necessary for the protection of timber so stored.' Apparently Mr. Lloyd was under the impression that if them was license for the storage of timber that would cover the shed erected over it.3. It was contended by the Vakil for the petitioner in this Court that the putting up of the shed is only necessar...
K.V. Subramania Iyer Vs. the District Magistrate of Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.198
ORDERAbdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. Mr. K.V. Subramania Iyer, a First Grade Pleader practising in the Salem District, has been called upon by the District Magistrate of Salem to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act with reference to certain statements which occurred in. an article contributed by the Pleader to the newspaper 'New India' on the 5th August 1919. The gist of the article is to show that the present administration of criminal justice by the subordinate magistracy in the Salem District was not satisfactory. The general complaint was that the present District Magistrate had issued a number of circulars to the Subordinate Magistrates with reference to the granting of adjournments which fettered the discretion of the Subordinate Magistrates, in dealing with the cases before them properly, The statements subject-matter of the charge are; (a) 'The Magistrates were allowed great latitude to exercise their discretion and judgme...
In Re: Abdul Rahim Beg
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.528; (1919)37MLJ588
ORDER1. The summons was illegal as not sealed as required by Section 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (See Mahajan Sheik v. Emperor I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 708, decided with reference to the analogous provisions in Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of warrants)2. We set aside the orders of the Courts below granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for disobeying the said void summons....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »