Chennai Court March 1919 Judgments
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sankaralinga Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ92
1. We cannot agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the words 'other person duly authorised as aforesaid ' in Section 98(2) of Local Board's Act refer only to' some person, duly authorised by him in that behalf ' mentioned in Section 98(1), for we think that the use of the single word ' other ' precludes this view, which would require the word 'any' or 'such other' to support it. In our opinion there must be a separate authorization under each clause of the section, and the words ' as aforesaid ' in Clause 2 must be read as meaning 'by him in that behalf.' In this view the notice issued by the union chairman was valid, as authority had been given to him Ex. C.S. 33 of the Act does not restrict specific delegations allowed by other sections of the Act, and there is no reason to read the words 'other person' as meaning Vice-President alone.2. The case against accused being a summons case no charge was necessary, and as accused was represented by a vakil he must have been aware of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Anantha Rama Aiyar and anr. Vs. Kumaraswami Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.922
William Ayling, J.1. Following Venkataswami Naidu v. Rangappa Naidu 26 Ind. Cas. 944 : 2 L.W. 109 I must hold that the lower Court was not justified in considering the discharge alleged by the defendant, It certainly could not be set up against the original decree holder vide Budrudeen v. Gulam Moideen 12 Ind. Cas. 562 : 36 M.P 357 : 10 M.L.T. 396 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 473 : 24 M.L.J. 541. It is argued that it may nevertheless be considered by the Court as a ground for refusing to recognise the transfer of the decree, but in view of the wording of Order XXI, Rule 16, from which the words 'if that Court thinks fit' found in the old Section 232, have been omitted, it is difficult to hold that the Court has a disoretion to decline to allow execution on this ground vide Asud Ali Molla v. Haider Ali 6 Ind. Cas. 826 : 38 C.P 13 : 14 C.W.N. 918 : 12 C.L.J. 130.2. The order of the lower Court must be set aside and execution must be allowed to proceed. I make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sankaralingam Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.1003
1. We cannot agree with the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the words other person duly authorised as aforesaid,' in Section 98(2) of the Local Boards Act refer only to 'some person duly authorized by him in that behalf' mentioned in Section 91(1), for we think that the use of the single word 'other' precludes this view, which would require the word 'any' or 'such other' to support it. In our opinion there must be a separate authorisation under each clause of the section, and the words 'as aforesaid' in Clause 2 must be read as meaning 'by him in that behalf.' In this view the notice issued by the Union Chairman was valid, as authority has been given to him by Exhibit C. Section 33 of the Act does not restrict specific delegations allowed by other sections of the Act, and there is no reason to read the words 'other person' as meaning Vice President alone.2. The case against accused being a summons case no charge was necessary, and as accused was represented by a Vakil he must have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiapurayil Kannyan Baduvan and anr. Vs. Chennyanteakath Puthiapuray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.286; (1919)37MLJ47
Wallis, C.J.1. The Malabar compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, 1899, entitles a tenant who is sued in ejectment to compensation for improvements to the land from which it is sought to eject him, and authorizes him, notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy, to remain in possession until ejectment in execution of a decree or of an order of Court varying that decree as provided in Section 6(3). Section 6(1) provides that the decree is to direct that on payment by the plaintiff into Court of the amount found due for improvements the defendant is ' to put the plaintiff into possession of the land with the improvements thereon.' As under Section 5(2) the tenant after decree is to continue in possession as a tenant, Section 6(3) provides for a re-valuation of the improvements when the plaintiff seeks to execute the decree with reference to the state of things then existing, and for an order of Court varying the decree accordingly. The only improvements for which compensation i...
Tag this Judgment!Parrappath Chinna Alias Thillu Amma Vs. T.P.K. Sankunni Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ361
ORDERAyling, J.1. Petitioner and respondent in this case are both Nairs following Marumakkathayam law; and the four children in respect of whom petitioner claims maintenance are the offspring of a sambhandham between them. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, finding that petitioner's tavazhi, from which the children admittedly had a right to maintenance, was able to maintain them has dismisssed the petition, relying on the ruling in Chantan v. Mathu I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 957.2. I was a party to that decision, and after hearing the matter re-argued, see no reason to change my mind.3. It seems to me that the object of including the maintenance sections (Chapter XXXVI) in the Criminal Procedure Code can only have been the prevention of destitution on public grounds; and that it should only be applied in cases where, in the absence of these provisions or the more cumbrous process of civil law, the wife or children would be destitute. Its unrestricted application to a society governed by a system o...
Tag this Judgment!Parappati Chinna Alias Thillu Amma Vs. T.P.K. Shankunni Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.893
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. Petitioner and respondent in this case are both Nairs following Maruma-katayam Law, and the four children in respect of whom petitioner claims mainteiance are the offspring of a Sambandam between them. The Sab Divisional Magistrate, finding that petitioner's Tavazhi, from which the childran admittedly had a right to maintenance, was able to maintain them, has dismissed the petition relying on the ruling in Chantan v. Chakkapayyan Mathu 32 Ind. Cas. 141 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 111 : 17 Cri. L.J. 16.2. I was a party to that decision and after hearing the matter re-argued I see no reason to change my mind.3. It seems to ma that the object of including the maintenance sections (Chapter XXXVI) in the Criminal Procedure Code can only have been the prevention of destitution on public grounds; and that it should only be applied in cases where, in the absence of these provisions or the more cumbrous process of civil law, the wife or children would be destitute. Its unrestric...
Tag this Judgment!Amalur Venkayya Naidu Vs. Vissa Lakshminarasayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.969
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff had an agreement in his favour for sale of certain mica mines, the property of certain Marwaris of this town. The mines are situated in the District of Nellore. It appears that, in pursuance of that agreement, a deed of sale was executed, but it was not registered as the plaintiff was unable to find the entire amount of the consideration for it. Rs. 450, however, part of the consideration money, was recovered from him by a suit in the Small Cause Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into negotiations with the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent in this appeal, with respect to the mines, I may mention that part of the property was free-hold and part of it was lease-hold. The term of the lease hold expired on 31st October 1907. The contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is embodied in two letters, Exhibits C and C1, which were exchanged between the parties on 4th February 1907, and the constriction of those letters is one of the important...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamani Patnaik Mussadi Vs. Sukaduvu Beharu and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad803
Krishnan, J.1. We must accept in Second Appeal the findings of fact of the learned District Judge that the mortgagors made the payment they pleaded to the mortgagee and that they did so without notice of the prior assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff. We think the learned Judge is right in holding that on the above findings plaintiff was bound by the payment so made.2. The English Law on the point is quite clear. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 21, page 179, paragraph 334, it is stated:That the mortgagor is entitled to make payments to the mortgagee, whether of principal or interest, and to have credit for them as against the transferee after the transfer until he has received notice of it.3. And several English cases, including Bickerton v. Walker (1886) 31 Ch.D. 151 and Dixon v. Winch (2), are quoted.4. There does not seem to be any good reason why that rule, which is founded on principles of equity, should not be followed in this country. It is true that after the amend...
Tag this Judgment!Panuganti Narasimha Rao and anr. Vs. Sreerajah Vellanki Srinivasa Jaga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ193
Bakewell, J.1. The plaint in this case was presented on 17-6-1912 and alleged that the plaintiff was the agent of the defendant and his father for the collection of the kist of a certain village and borrowed monies on their authority, and claimed payment of a specific sum, the balance shown by the statement of account therewith filed, interest thereon, and damages for costs incurred by the plaintiff in a suit filed against him in respect of money borrowed on behalf of the defendant. In his defence, dated 26-2-1913, the defendant denied the authority of the plaintiff to borrow monies and defend suits and otherwise challenged the correctness of plaintiff's accounts, and alleged that upon proper accounts being taken a balance will be found due to the defendant in respect of which he was about to take steps against the plaintiff.2. On the 24th February 1913 issues were framed as to the correctness of plaintiff's accounts. On the 20th June 1913 the defendant applied for leave to file an add...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.R.L.M.S.T. Lakshumanan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Parasivan Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ159
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge of Tuticorin holding that a suit on a mortgage was not barred by limitation, the point taken before us being that the suit was barred. The bar is said to arise under Article 11 of the Limitation Act and purports to be based on the failure of the plaintiff in this suit to bring his suit within one year from the date of the disposal of a certain objection petition. The lower Appellate Court has held that though the proceedings were under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they were not in a claim petition instituted under Rule 58 but were proceedings in settling a proclamation under the provisions beginning with Rule 64, namely, ' sale generally.' The learned Subordinate Judge has not given any reasons in his judgment but it is sought to be supported by a ruling to be found in the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Ganeshkrishna v. Damoo I.L.R. (1916) Bom. 64. There is some slight difference in the proced...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »