Chennai Court February 1919 Judgments
Venkatappier Vs. Ramaswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.517
1. The defendant is the appellant. He obtained a permanent lease of a house site from the trustee of a religious trust in 1911. The successor in the trusteeship brought this suit in 1915 to eject him. That the permanent lease is invalid against the trust cannot be denied and though the 2nd ground in the appeal memorandum contends that it is valid against the trust, the point was not seriously argued [see Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Deivasikamony Pandara Sannadhi 39 Ind. Cas. 722 : 19 Bom. L.R. 567(1917) M.W.N. 477 : 26 C.L.J. 153 : 6 L.W. 222 : 44 I.A. 147 2. The next contention was that the defendant, who has built a house on the leased site, is entitled to compensation before his evictment and is not merely entitled to be allowed to remove the materials of the house (which he has been allowed to do by the decrees of the lower Courts). Mr. T.V. Venkatarama Aiyar conceded that he cannot rely on Section 51 of Act IV of 1882 (Transfer of Property Act) in support of his claim to compens...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Iyer Vs. Rex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.824; (1919)36MLJ448
John Wallis, C.J.1. I am of opinion on the construction of the section that the words 'any offence referred to in Section 195' refer to offences within the scope of Section 195, and not to all offences against sections of the Indian Penal Code enumerated in Section 195 whether or not they are within the scope of that section. The preponderance of authority is in favour of this view, beginning with Abdul Khadar v. Meera Sahib I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 224. Parker and Shephard, JJ, gave no reasons for their decision in that case, but they were no doubt familiar with the history of the section, and knew that the words ' committed before or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding' were first introduced into the section in the Code of 1882 as a further limitation on its operation, and that the corresponding sections of the Codes of 1861 and 1872 were clearly limited to cases coming within the operation of the sections corresponding to Section 195 of the present Code. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayya Ayyar Vs. Krishnachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.956
1. In this case the equity of redemption in certain property belonging in equal shares to two divided brothers was attached in execution of a decree against both and ordered to be sold in execution. The senior brother obtained leave to sell privately under Order XXI, Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The junior brother objected and the District Munsif, instead of cancelling the permission to sell privately, allowed the sale to go on, leaving the elder brother's right to sell his brother's interest undecided. On the authority of Danappa v. Yamnappa 26 B.P 379 4 Bom. L.R. 61 we must hold that the senior brother had no power to sell his brother's interest. The property was purchased by the defendant, a prior mortgagee, from both the brothers, and who has since been in possession and is now sued by the younger brother for his half of the suit property.2. At the date of the defendant's purchase the interests of both brothers had become liable to be sold for the decree debt by virtue o...
Tag this Judgment!Dattada Bhimaraju Vs. Kasibotla Sreerama Sastrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ303
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with my learned brother's judgment; but I desire to add that the argument based on Section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure depends on the interpretation of the word 'rules' therein as not conferring any substantive right of appeal but as referring only to the rules mentioned in Sections 121 to 128. It is a sufficient answer to this, that Section 42 merely reproduces Section 228 of the former Code, in which no such rules could have been in question.2. The Appeal against Order must be dismissed with costs. The Civil Revision Petition which is also before us, must be dismissed, because no question under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is shown to arise. No order as to costs in the Civil Revision Petition.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.3. This matter arises in execution. The Subordinate Judge of Cocanada exercising Small Cause jurisdiction passed a decree on the 14th of July 1905. It was transferred for execution to the District Munsif of Ellore on the regular side....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamhala Narayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ452
1. It does not appear that the Sessions Judge has followed the directions contained in Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code which require him to give judgment after recording the opinion of the assessors, to convict if he finds the accused guilty and to pass sentence according to Law.2. The circumstances that in this case, the accused is charged in the same trial with another offence triable by Jury (Section 269, Clause 3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Judge disagrees with the verdict of the Jury on that charge and desires to make a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not, in our opinion, absolve the Sessions Judge from complying with the requirements of Section 309, as regards the offence tried by him with assessors.3. The reference is therefore premature and we shall send back the case to the learned Sessions Judge to rectify the irregularity and then act according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Tanguturi Sriramulu and Rao Bahadur K. Viresalingam Garu Vs. Nyapathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.635
1. By consent the second appeal is dismissed with costs.2. An order was made dispensing with the filing of the judgment of the lower Court. There is, therefore, no question of limitation. Appellant is not entitled to read an affidavit of which he did not give notice to the other side; the question of non-appearance of the Vakil cannot, therefore, be considered. We are not, therefore, prepared to interfere with the discretion of the lower Appellate Court as to costs.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.4. The first point argued is that the suit is barred by Article 23 of the Limitation Act. The order passed by the Magistrate purported to be a discharge under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the complainant made an application to the District Magistrate under Section 437 for further enquiry and the latter holding, that the order was one of discharge, directed a re-trial before himself which he had jurisdiction to do upon the facts found by him. There was, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kambala Narayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.832
1. It does not appear that the Sessions Judge has followed the directions contained in Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code which require him to give judgment after recording the opinion of the assessors, to convict if be finds the accused guilty and to pass sentence according to law.2. The circumstances that in this case the accused is charged in the same trial with another offence triable by Jury Section 269, Clause (3), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Judge disagrees with the verdict of the Jury on that charge and desires to make a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not, in our opinion, absolve the Sessions Judge from complying with the requirements of Section 309, as regards the offence tried by him with assessors.2. The reference is, therefore, premature and we shall send back the case to the learned Sessions Judge to rectify the irregularity and then act according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Aiyathurai Pillai Vs. Gnanaprakasa Odayar Alias Muthusami Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.829
1. We are constrained to differ from the learned Judge and to hold that the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised. The appellant before us presented his plaint on the Small Cause Side. The learned Judge allowed the present respondent to argue that no appeal from the decision of the District Munsif in the litigation that was initiated would lie, because the suit was of a Small Cause nature and the order of return for presentation on the ordinary side was wrong. The order was not appealed against and was obtained on respondent's objection. We do not think, and have been shown no authority, that he was entitled at a later stage to object to the jurisdiction, which he had himself designated as the proper one.2. The learned Judge's decision is set aside and the civil revision petition remanded for re-hearing with reference to the other points taken in it. Costs to date will follow the result and be pro vided for in the order to be passed....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetathipathi Avergal Sikkudaiyar Swami Avergal Ja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.876
1. These second appeals arise from two suits brought by the present Sikkudayar Swami of Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt of Kurabakonam against the defendants, who are the Shrotriemdars of the 3 plaint Shrotriem villages in the Chingleput District, for payment of Sikkudayar Merai alleged to be due to him from them for 12 years from Fasli 1309.2. Plaintiff's case, as finally put forward by him in Court, was that the Merai, which was a share in the crop, was to be deducted and given to him from the outturn of the produce of the lands in the Shrotriem villages in Chingleput District at a fixed rate after deducting 1/5th for common expenses and before the division of the crop between the Shrotriemdar and the Kudivaramdar. It was stated that the Sikkudayar Swami obtained the right to this Merai as an Inam from the Hindu Chola Rajas, that the British Government recognised it and for some time collected and paid it to the Swami themselves, that at time of the settlement and the grant of the Sanads to the...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga thevan Vs. Sheikh Meera Ibrahim Ravuthar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.417
1. The father of the defendants in this suit had a money decree against a Zamindar, the owner of the properties in dispute, and in execution of that decree brought them to sale in June 1893. The plaintiff, the appellant before us, bought the property by private sale from the Zamindar in 1916, under Exhibit A, and the appellant's case is that the purchase by the respondents' father was invalid inasmuch as the respondents' father was a usufructuary mortgagee of these properties and, therefore, under Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 he could not bring the property to sale in execution of the money decree. The first question for determination is whether the defendants' father was in fact a usufructuary mortgagee.2. What happened was, one Veerappa Chetty under Exhibits III and IV, Othi deeds of 1875, had a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 10,750. He was to enjoy the property in lieu of interest. The defendants' father had a money decree for nearly Rs. 7,000. That was in Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »