Chennai Court April 1919 Judgments
Vuppu Sitaramayya Vs. Minchula Gopalakrishnamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ216
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The whole question in this appeal is whether the suit to set aside the sale held on the 29th April 1899 is barred by limitation. The suit was instituted about 15 years from the date of sale and at the date of the sale, the father of the plaintiff was living. Therefore the suit will be barred unless the case be treated as a case where the sale is to be regarded as null and void. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale was void in as much as no notice had been issued under Section 248 of the old Civil Procedure Code. That section says that the Court shall issue a notice to the party against whom execution is applied for, requiring him to show cause, within a period to be fixed by the Court why the decree should not be executed against him (a) if more than one year has elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for its execution or (b) if the enforcement of the decree be applied for against the legal representatives of a party to the suit in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mohammad Abdul Karim Vs. Sheikh Mohammad Yusuf and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.114
1. In this case the plaintiff appellant sued for a declaration of his title in one half of property valued at Rs. 2,100 and that upon an adjudication of his title ho should be put in possession of his share after a partition by metes and bounds. The Court of first instance found as a fact that he was out of possession at the time of the institution of his suit. The Court-fee on the suit having been Rs. 10 only, the Court of first instance thereupon recorded an opinion that the Court-fee payable was ad valorem on Rs. 2,100. On appeal to the District Court a Court-fee of Rs. 10 only was paid. The Sheristadar of the Court, therefore, recorded a note to the effect that the deficit Court-fee payable was Rs. 130 in the lower Court and Rs. 130 in the Judge's Court, in all Rs. 260, whereupon the learned District Judge recorded an order that he should pay Rs. 240 within a week. This order was brought to contest on the 23rd January 1918 but affirmed and an order made rejecting the appeal on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Sastri Vs. Ponnusami Iyer, Minor by Gcardiah, Subbalaks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.721
1. The lower Appellate Court has held that defendants were entitled to insist on plaintiff paying the fine imposed on him before he could be allowed to return to work and to the enjoyment of the profits of his employment, such payment to be under protest and subject to plaintiff's right to recover the amount he paid by suit. The importance of this is with reference to plaintiff's claim to compensation for loss of earnings from the date of his exclusion from his employment until the date of his plaint.2. The first answer to this claim is that defendants had no right to exclude plaintiff from his employment until the fine was paid. Defendants contend first that plaintiff was bound to mitigate the damage he would sustain by making all reasonable exertions, including paying the fine, to return to work or to obtain other work suitable to him. If this is based on the general law relating to damages we cannot accept it. For no case has been shown us, in which the reasonable exertion to be tak...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Collector of Madura and anr. Vs. Ramasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad51
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This is an appeal from an award of the District Judge of Madura in certain land acquisition proceedings and the preliminary question is whether Article 156 of the Limitation Act applies. The court-fees were paid on the memorandum of appeal 1 year and 149 days out of time, and if Article 156 applies the appeal would be barred. The question is of first impression and cannot be said to be quite free from difficulty. The Land Acquisition Act gives a right of appeal by Section 54, which lays down:Subject to the provisions of the Coda of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under this Act.2. There is no special period of limitation provided for in the Land Acquisition Act, nor is there any allusion, unless it be by implication of this very section, to the Limitation Act. Article 156 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 90 days for ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rama Rao Vs. Martha Sequeira and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.921
1. The 1st defendant and the plaintiff are neighbours. The former owns' a large piece of land on which he has built cottages which he has let out for rent. For the convenience of the tenants he had put up a latrine in a particular place. This was objected to by the Municipal Council, who directed the demolition of it and the construction of a proper and substantial one for the use of his tenants in the garden in an unobjectionable place about 25 yards to the west of the latrine complained of.' (Vide Exhibit II.) The 1st defendant began to put up the latrine close to the house--V of the plaintiff. The site was approved of by the Municipal Chairman. The plaintiff complained against it and appealed to the Collector. The Collector passed orders stating that the site for the latrine was chosen by the Municipal Chairman after consulting both the parties and it could not be changed. This suit was brought for a mandatory injunction to remove the latrine as it is a nuisance to the plaintiff. In...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Manika Gramanai Vs. E.K. Parsuram Mudeley and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.894
Napeir, J.1. Appeal against Order No. 255 of 1919 is an appeal against the order passed in the District Court of Chingleput on a petition under Order XXI, Rule 98, Civil Procedure Code. There is no dispute about the facts. The petitioner was the purchaser at a sale in a mortgage suit.2. The 4th respondent purchased the property under a money decree in a suit filed after the decree in the mortgage suit. The lower Court held that the respondent was a person who came within the mischief of Rule 98 of Order XXI and was not protected by the language of Rule 99. He based his decision on a certain ruling of this Court to the effect that a person in the position of the 4th respondent was really a representative of the judgment-debtor and that, therefore, his rights should properly be adjudicated on in execution proceedings.3. This was before the decision of the Full Bench in Veyindramuthu Pillai v. Maya Nadan 54 Ind. Cas. 209 : 43 M.K 107 : (1919) M.W.N. 881 : 26 M.L.T. 391 : 38 M.L.J. 32 whic...
Tag this Judgment!Bappu Reddiar Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ246
1. After the order of remand was made by this Court on 26-3-1918 giving an opportunity to the transferee, the transfer in whose favour is impeached in this case under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, both the parties adduced evidence relevent to the matter and we have now got to decide on that evidence whether there is a case under Section 37. A ruling of this Court in Official Assignee of Madras v. Mehta and Sons : (1919)36MLJ190 and another of the Calcutta High Court in Nripendra Nath Sahu v. Ashutosh Ghose I.L.R. (1915) Cal 640 lay down clearly after a full discussion of the authorities that it is for the receiver who is impugning a transaction as amounting to fraudulent preference within the meaning of Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to prove the allegation. No doubt in the order of remand, the learned Judges seem to have taken the opposite view. This is a question of law and we agree with the decisions already mentioned2. The facts of this case are that Nag...
Tag this Judgment!Thattantavita Alias Thattante Kandom Veetu Parambil Parkum Chathoth Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ340
John Wallis, C.J.1. The period of limitation prescribed by articles 165 and 168 may be traced back to Sections 230 and 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, which dealt only with obstructions by and, dispossessions of, persons other than the defendant. The provision in Section 230 was re-enacted as Article 158 (now 165) of the Limitation Act of 1871, as follows: 'Under the Code of Civil Procedure by a person dispossessed of immoveable property and disputing the right of the decree-holder to be put into possession.' This, in my opinion, must be read as meaning 'disputing the right of the decree-holder to be put into possession under the decree.' That question had been decided against the defendant in the suit itself, and it was not open to him to raise it again in execution. This shows that Article i 58 was intended to apply only to a case covered by Section 280 of the Code where a person other than the defendant had been dispossessed, and that is in, accordance with the ordinary pr...
Tag this Judgment!R. Velayudham Pillai and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.689
1. Section 42 of the Provincial Insolvency Act lays down 'where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the debts of the insolvent have been paid in fall, the Court shall, on the application of the debtor or of any other person interested, by order in writing annul the adjudication,' The learned District Judge, in disposing of the appellants' petition under this section, says that as the payments had not been made through the Official Receiver, he could not grant the annulment sought for and has dismissed the petition. We do not understand how the learned Judge came to hold that, unless the payments alleged to have been made by the insolvent ware made through the Official Receiver, annulment could not be granted. Section 42 does not require that the payments should be made through the Official Receiver, and Mr. T.R. Tenkatarama Sastri appearing for the Official Receiver is unable to cite any authority in support of the pro-position laid down by the learned Judge. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramaswami Pillai Vs. the Thasildar of Madura and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ110
1. This is an appeal from an award of the District Judge of Madura in certain Land Acquisition proceedings and the preliminary question is whether Article 156 of the Limitation Act applies. The court fees were paid on the memo of appeal one year and 149 days out of time, and if Article 156 applies the appeal would be barred, The question is of first impression and cannot be said to be quite free from difficulty The Land Acquisition Act gives a right to appeal by Section 54 which lays down,' subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High court from the award or from any part of the award of the court in any proceedings under that act.' There is no special period of limitation provided in the Land Acquisition Act, nor is there any allusion, unless it be by implication of this very section, to the Limitation Act. Article 156 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 90 days for ' Appeal under the Code ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »