Chennai Court August 1919 Judgments
A.L.A.C.T. Solayappa Chetty Vs. R.M.M.L. Lakshmanan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ146
ORDER1. C.M.P. No. 1655 of 1919 is an application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Petitioner may be allowed to continue the appeal as a pauper, (the appeal having been filed long ago as an ordinary appeal in the regular course) so that the petitioner may be exempted from payment of the additional court fee of Rs. 2,900 and odd which he would have to pay if the appeal was prosecuted further as an ordinary appeal.2. Appeal No. 278 of 1914 was filed in the first instance against the so called third preliminary decree passed on the 20th of April 1914 in the Ramnad Subordinate Judge's Court and the appeal was presented on the 3rd of August 1914. The appeal has since been converted by an order of this Court dated 6th December 1918 into an appeal against the final decree passed by the Ramnad Court on the 29th October 1914 which followed the judgment of the same date (29-10-1914), the judgment or order passed (as third preliminary judgment) on the 20th of Apr...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.C.T. Solaiyappa Chetty Vs. R.M.M.L. Lakshmanan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.761
ORDER1. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1655 of 1919 is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the petitioner may be allowed to continue an appeal as a pauper (the appeal having been filed long ago as an ordinary appeal in the regular course), so that the petitioner may be exempted from payment of the additional Court-fee of Rs. 2,900 and odd which he would have to pay if the appeal was prosecuted further as an ordinary appeal.2. Appeal No. 278 of 1914 was filed in the first instance against the so-called third preliminary decree passed on the 20th April 1914 in the Ramnad Subordinate Judge's Court and the appeal was presented on the 3rd of August 1914. The appeal has been since converted by an order of this Court, dated 6th December 19l8, into an appeal against the final decree passed by the Ramnad Court on the 29th of October 1914, which followed the judgment of the same date (29th October 1917), the judgment or order passed (a third preliminar...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sri Rajah Bommadevara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.689
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The pleadings are sufficiently set out in the judgment to be pronounced by my learned brother and I shall not, therefore, repeat them in detail. Numerous questions were argued in this appeal, but I think it necessary to consider' and decide only the following as the other questions would fall to be considered only if I had decided the questions 2 to 4 against the plaintiffs. The questions I propose to consider are,--(1) Is the river Krishna a public navigable river at the place where the plaintiffs' five villages abut on the river?(2) Are the plaintiffs, as riparian proprietors, entitled to the bed of the river Krishna up to the mid stream so far as it runs along side the villages of Pedapulipaka, Chodavaram, Madduru, Royyuru and Vallur?(3) Apart from their right as riparian proprietors, did the plaintiffs' predecessors-in title acquire the ownership of the river-bed by reason of the grant made by the Government at the time of the Permanent Settlement?(4) Have the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaranatha Goundan and thetaroya Reddi Vs. Sellappa Reddi and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.524
Spencer, J. 1. The only thing we have to concern ourselves with in deciding this second appeal is to ascertain as far as possible what were the intentions of the testator, and that is not an easy matter because there are some expressions in the Will which are not easy to be reconciled with others. In the first part of the Will there is a provision that the testator's mother and sister are both to enjoy his properties with full proprietary rights after his death, and this is followed by an expression of intention to exclude all others. Then at the end it is provided that if the sister should die without, issue, the Dayathis of the testator are to get the property and that their consent should be obtained in the matter of discharging debts. There is no distinct provision that the two women are to have powers to alienate the property beyond the use of the words Sarva Swathantrathudan, which may be translated 'with full proprietary rights' and have been regarded by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., as t...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnappan Alias Hetharmamana Rowther Vs. Arunachalam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ375
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'whether an attachment operates as a valid prohibition against alienation of the attached property from the date on which it is ordered or from that on which the necessary proclamation is made and copy of the order affixed.' This depends upon the proper construction of Section 64 and Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 64 lays down that ' where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.'' Rule 54 lays down how an attachment is made : It is in these words:(1) Where the property is immoveable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit fr...
Tag this Judgment!Nemannakudre Vs. Lchmu Hengasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ539
Spencer, J. 1. The first point argued in this Second Appeal has not been taken in the appellant's grounds of appeal, but as it involves a question of principle; and as it strikes at the root of the jurisdiction of the Courts if the appellant succeeds on it, we have allowed it to be argued.2. I agree with my learned brother that what the Courts were asked to do in this suit was not to frame a scheme or to exercise any undefined authority of selecting the most suitable person to manage the affairs of this family, but to remove the present ejaman for mismanagement and at the same time to declare that the next in order of seniority was unfit to hold the vacant office, and I fail to see any reason for supposing that Civil Courts have no power to grant such a declaration.3. Speaking for myself, I am averse to putting any narrow limitations on the power of Courts to do all that is needful to settle the disputes of the parties in all civil matters that come up to be adjudicated upon. To hold o...
Tag this Judgment!Achmu Hengsu and Nine ors. Vs. Nemanna Kudre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad319
Spencer, J.1. The first point argued in this Second Appeal has not been taken in the appellant's grounds of appeal, but as it involves a question of principle, and as it strikes at the root of the jurisdiction of the Courts if the appellant succeeds on it, we have allowed it to be argued.2. I agree with my learned brother that what the Courts were asked to do in this suit was not to frame a scheme, or to exercise any undefined authority of selecting the most suitable person to manage the affairs of this family, but to remove the present ejman for mismanagement and at the same time to declare that the next in order of seniority was unfit to hold the vacant office, and I fail to see any reason for supposing that Civil Courts have not power to grant such a declaration.3. Speaking for myself, I am averse to putting any narrow limitations on the power of Courts to do all that is needful to settle the disputes of the parties in all Civil matters that come up to be adjudicated upon. To hold o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Santhanam Iyengar Vs. Srinivasaraghavan, Minor by His Mother and Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ661; (1919)37MLJ693
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order passed by me on the 12th July 1918 allowing the appellants to file an additional ground of appeal and to amend the valuation of the appeal. Notice of the application to amend was not given to the 6th Respondent and the order was passed without hearing him. Order 41 -A Rule 2, Clause 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that unless otherwise ordered the period for respondent to enter appearance shall be 25 days from the service of notice upon him, and that, if he wants to appear and defend the appeal, he should enter appearance within that period. Rule 42 of the Appellate Side Rules provides that notice of an application to amend a memorandum of appeal should be given to all parties who have entered appearance. I do not think that Rule 42 prevents a party who has not been served with the notice on the ground that he has not entered appearance from applying to set aside the order passed exparte. If any penal...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalla Reddi Vs. Muthialu Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ624
1. The 5th defendant obtained a money decree against the 1st and 4th defendants in a suit in which the 2nd and 3rd defendants were parties but were exonerated from liability. The decree-holder attached the undivided half share of the judgment-debtors in certain property alleged to belong to the undivided family of which the four defendants were members, and thereupon the 2nd defendant applied by a petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the attachment of portion of the property might be raised on the ground that it had been assigned to him upon a partition and was his separate property. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was too late. The appellant bought the attached property at the Court sale and then sued the defendants for partition, and an issue was raised whether the portion of the property previously claimed by the 2nd defendant belonged to him.2. The appellant was not a party to the previous suit and is not a representative of any part...
Tag this Judgment!Neelatooru Venkataranga Charlu and ors. Vs. Neelatooru Sampath Kumara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.382
1. [After dealing with the questions of fact arising in the case their Lordships proceeded as follows--Ed.] * * * * 2. The only remaining question we have to consider is the question of costs. Though the two decisions reported in Dildar Ali Khan v. Bhawmi Shahai Singh 34 C.P 878 : 5 C.L.J. 642 and Ambica Prosad Singh v. Pardip Singh 28 Ind. Cas. 446 : 42 C.P 451 : 19 C.W.N. 233 follow the English rule and an old case reported in the Weekly Reporter and decide that costs in a partition suit up to the preliminary decree should be left to be borne by the respective parties, we think that, where a partition suit has to be brought for the effecting of a partition between the members of a family and neither party has been guilty of any unfair contention, the costs till the preliminary decree should, as in the case of administration suits, come out of the estate. As regards the costs in appeal, as the defendants have partially failed and partially succeeded, the parties will pay and receive p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »