Chennai Court October 1920 Judgments
Vythilinga Padayachi and Three ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad642; (1921)41MLJ78
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first plaintiff and the grandfather of the 4th plaintiff in this suit obtained the properties in dispute in exchange from one Srinivasa Aiyar on the 3rd August 1900 but no resgistered deed was executed as is required by law and therefore there was no effective transfer of title to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs however remained in possession of the properties since that date. On the 29th April 1910, they were attached at the instance of one Chidambaram Chetti, who had obtained a decree against Srinivasa Aiyar. The plaintiffs put in a claim on the 1st October 1910 and it was allowed by an order dated the 1st December 1910. Then Chidambaram Chettiar, the attaching creditor, instituted a suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish that the properties belonged to his judgment-debtor and that he was entitled to attach them and bring them to sale in discharge of his decree. This was on the 21st December 1910. A decree was passed in that suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Rangachariar Vs. Doraswami Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad689; (1921)41MLJ332
1. None of the grounds sought to be urged before us were raised in the Lower Appellant Court. Therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs.MEMO OF OBJECTIONS.2. Two points are raised by Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Iyer in his memorandum of objections in this case. The first is that the lower courts were wrong in allowing commutation at the rate of annas 4 only for the punja lands in question on the ground that plaintiff in his pLalnt admitted he was liable to pay Rs. 1-4-0 per acre. We are not inclined to allow this objection as we do not think the plaintiff did so admit his liability, He says in para 8 of the pLalnt that he has been paying Rs. 1-4-0 for A schedule lands and 'cannot afford to pay more than the said rates with regard to B schedule lands also.' This does hot in our opinion amount to an admission that he is liable to pay Rs, 1-4-0 for B. schedule lands. This objection is therefore dismissed.3. The second objection is that the Lower Courts were wrong in deducting from the total ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnusami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad410; 60Ind.Cas.64; (1920)39MLJ709
ORDER1. Section 10 of Regulation II of 1816 authorizes the Village Magistrate to sentence a person guilty of certain offences of a trivial nature to confinement in the village choultry for a period not exceeding 12 hours. In this case the accused was sentenced and placed in confinement in front of a temple which is said to be a public place in the village of Vellayathambar. The Village Magistrate has power only to enforce the sentence of confinement in the village choultry and no where else (see 1 Weir 924). The sentence is therefore set aside....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manikkam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.55; (1920)39MLJ714
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the Additional District Magistrate should have given notice to the petitioner, who was complainant in the ease, before making the order of transfer. The complainant had obtained an order for transfer of a certain criminal charge. filed in the Stationary Sub Magistrate's Court of Papanasam to the Sub-Magistrate's Court of Kumbakonam on the ground that he had reasons for apprehending that hid case would not be properly tried, Thereupon the accused applied to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore for re transfer of the case from the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam to that of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam and the Additional District Magistrate made an order of transfer without giving any opportunity to the complainant in the case to be heart? in support of the order of transfer which he had obtained from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferring the case from the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam. It may be, as...
Tag this Judgment!Gadigi Muddappa and ors. Vs. Gadigi Rudramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad97; 61Ind.Cas.958
Napier, J.1. The Judge has accepted the evidence that, at the date of hearing of enquiry, the applicant was not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the Court-fee on the plaint. She admitted in evidence that she had received a large sum after the date of the application from the persons against whom she intended to file the suit, but said that she had paid away that amount to a creditor. There was no dispute that, at the date of her application, she was a pauper. The point taken is that, having been in possession of funds after her application, the plea would fail and that she could not revive it, by paying the money away. There is no authority on this point, but I think the contention is well founded and that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order, once it had ascertained that she had ceased to be a pauper after the date of the application, The order will be set aside. Time for payment of Court-fee is extended to two months from date of receipt of order....
Tag this Judgment!Manian Alias Subramanian Pattar Vs. Kuthiravathath Kottayil Raman Styl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad609; (1921)41MLJ15
1. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree for redemption of the kanom properties against the third defendant and in execution of that decree, obtained possession of the properties after paying to the third defendant the value of the improvements as settled by the court of trial. The 3rd defendant appealed against the decree with reference to the amount awarded for improvements: but he did not take any objection to the decree as to the right of the plaintiff to redeem.2. The Appellate Court enhanced the amount payable on account of improvements and to that extent, modified the decree of the Lower Court. The 3rd defendant now claims mesne profits for the period from the date when the plaintiff obtained possession to the date when he deposited the value of improvements as fixed by the Appellate Court. In support of his claim the contention is put forward by the 3rd defendant that the decree for redemption and possession of the trial court was superseded by the decree of the Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!The Honourable Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad306; (1921)41MLJ288
Napier, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by the zemindar of Ramnad to recover thecrva from the trustee of the Rameswaram temple for trees growing on the land attached to the temple. The written statement alleged first that the topes belonging to the temple were devadayam land and that the temple is not liable to any theerva in law or by custom ; secondly, that the suit was barred by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, by virtue of two decrees, one that of the District Court at Madura on appeal in O.S. Nos. 288 and 289 of 1879, the other in O.S. Nos. 571 and 572 of 1903 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Paramafudi. Issues were framed, the third issue being ' Whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata?' The District Munsif decided against the defendant in respect of both judgments pleaded as res judicata, but the lower appellate court has reversed that decision holding that both these decisions operated as res judicata. This question now comes before us for d...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinadhabhotla Brahmayya Vs. Marla Appaya Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad121; (1921)40MLJ55
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This suit was instituted in order to have an auction sale held in execution of a decree, of the plaintiff's property set aside on the ground of irregularity and fraud. The sale was held on the 20th March, 1917. The present plaintiff, the judgment-debtor, applied on the 25th April, 1917 underOrder XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on the very same grounds as are now raised in the plaint. The application was dismissed as it was made after the expiry of the thirty days allowed by law and we may point out that the sale had been confirmed underOrder XXI, Rule 92(1) on the day previous to the application. Then the plaintiff filed an appeal and the appellate court remanded the application for fresh disposal on the ground that the court had inherent jurisdiction to set aside the sale even after the expiry of the period of limitation and after the confirmation of the sale.2. The present suit was filed on the 27th August, 1917. i.e., during the p...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council, Through the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ111
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This case involves the interpretation of some of the provisions of Act V of 1884, that is, the Madras Local Boards Act. The Local Board levied certain road and railway cesses on the plaintiff's land for faslis 1323 to 1325. These cesses were duly paid by the plaintiff. It was discovered afterwards, that is, sometime before December 1916 that what had been realised for faslis 1323 to 1325 was not the full assessment for which the land was liable and that by some mistake, apparently of the karnam, the entire occupied area had not been taken into account. Therefore the President of the District Board determined to realise the balance and under penal processes enforced under the Act of 1884, the money demanded was actually paid by the plaintiff, and he now seeks to recover it back. Both the lower courts have decided in favour of the plaintiff and given him a decree on the ground that under the Act no assessment can be levied for any fasli prior to the date when the assess...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Visvanadhan Chetti and ors. Vs. Arunachellam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ608
John Wallis, C.J.1. The answer to the reference appears to depend on the construction of Order 21, Rule 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was first enacted as Section 237 of the code of 1859 under which the first attaching decree-holder was entitled, as the first judgment-creditor suing out a writ of fi-fa in England, to have his claim satisfied in full out of the proceeds of execution, the surplus only being liable under the Code to rateable distribution among subsequent attaching creditors. It was however retained as Section 272 of the later codes under which by virtue of Section 295, now 73, the attaching judgment-creditors were obliged to submit to rateable distribution with, but only with, other decree-holders who had applied to the attaching Court for execution before the date specified in the section. Now it does not seem likely that the legislature would have retained, and even extended, the old Section 217 by substituting the word 'property' for 'money or any security,' ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »