Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad140; (1921)40MLJ211
Ayling, J.1. The charge in this case is under Section 82(a) of the Indian Registration Act (Act XVI of 1908) and it has been held in a recent judgment of this Court to which I was a party (In re Piramu Nadatti (1916) 33 I.C. 976 that Section 83 does not bar a prosecution by a private person for an offence under Section 82.2. With regard to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no prosecution for any of the offences specified in that section and it is unnecessary to consider whether if there were, sanction would be necessary (vide the judgment of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gopi Nath v. Kuldip Singh I.L.R.(1883) C. 566 3. In my opinion the records should be returned and the Assistant Sessions Judge directed to proceed with the case.Spencer, J.4. It is quite clear to my mind, that there is no obstacle to the accused being tried for an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act, merely because he might have been charged for an offence under Section 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad58; (1921)40MLJ166
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J. dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Shaw Wallace & Co., against the defendants to enforce an award on two grounds, (1) that the arbitrators were not duly appointed, and (2) that even if they were, they were guilty of technical misconduct, though acting bona fide, when they refused to adjourn the arbitration to allow of an application being made to set aside their appointment under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The facts may be very briefly stated. The contract between the plaintiffs, who are referred to as the merchants, and the defendants, who are referred to as the dealers, contains a very wide Clause (5) protecting the merchants from responsibility for late shipment in consequence of events beyond their control and also an arbitration Clause (12) in the following terms:--' Should any dispute arise as to the interpretation of this contract or any matter in connection ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad102; (1921)40MLJ218
1. This is an appeal from an order of the City Civil Judge dismissing an application by the decree-holder for execution against the original mortgagors, defendants 1 and 2, and the 3rd defendant who is the auction purchaser of the interest of the mortgagors. The appeal is only pressed as regards the application against the 3rd defendant, the auction purchaser. He undoubtedly made a payment of Rs. 28-13-0 on the 28th August 1918 for which he obtained a receipt and of this sum Rs. 23-12-0 was due for costs. In order to save limitation this payment must have been made for interest as such and the learned Judge has found that it was not made for interest. No other explanation is given as to why the additional Rs. 5-1-0 was paid and that sum amounts to very nearly three months' interest which was the amount of interest due up to the time fixed for payment by the decree, and we think that in the circumstances the natural and proper inference is that the payment was made for interest as such....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1921)ILR44Mad544
1. This is an Appeal from the Order of the City Civil Court Judge dismissing an application by the decree-holder for execution against the original mortgagors, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the third defendant who is the auction purchaser of the interest of the mortgagors. The appeal is only pressed as regards the application against the third defendant, the auction-purchaser. He undoubtedly made, a payment of Rs. 28-13-0 on 28th August 1918 for which he obtained a receipt and of this sum Rs. 23-12-0 was due for costs. In order to save limitation this payment must have been made for interest as such but the learned Judge has found that it was not made for interest. No other explanation is given as to why the additional Rs. 5-1-0 was paid and that sum amounts to very nearly three months' interest, which was the amount of interest due up to the time fixed for payment by the decree, and we think that in the circumstances the natural and proper inference is that the payment was made for inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 62Ind.Cas.205a
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Co., against the defendants to enforce an award on two grounds: (1) that the arbitrators were not duly appointed and, (2) that even if they were, they were guilty of technical misconduct, though acting bona fide, whet they refused to adjourn the arbitration to allow of an application being made to set aside their appointment under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The facts may be very briefly stated. The contrast between the plaintiffs, who are referred to as the merchants, and the defendants, who are referred to as the dealers, contains, a very wide Clause (5) protecting the merchants from responsibility for late shipment in consequence of events beyond their control, and also an 'arbitration Clause (12) in the following terms:--'Should any dispute arise as to the interpretation of this contract or any matter in connection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad696; 66Ind.Cas.837
Sadasiva Aiyar J.1. Second Appeal No. 502 of 1920 and the connected Civil Revision Petition No. 308 of 1920 have arisen out of a suit instituted by three trustees of a temple against their so trustee in a Munsif's Court.2. The suit, as I understand the plaint, is one for directing the defendant to submit his accounts and to pay up whatever may be found as the balance in his hands on the scrutiny of the accounts. The Court-fee paid on the valuation of the reliefs sought for were paid on two sums as follows:---'(a) amount which plaintiffs estimate as likely to be duo from defendant on account of receipts and expenditure in respect of the temple.... Rs. 950.0 0,' '(b) for rendering accounts Rs. 50-0 0.' Order VII, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, states that where the plaintiff sees for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, the plaintiff shall state approximately the amount sued for and 1 take it that Rs. 950 is mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad487; (1921)40MLJ306
1. This is a petition asking this Court to review the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in a suit between the Municipal Council of that town and the defendant.2. The short point is whether the defendant who owned a building in Tanjore which was used as a theatre, is liable for taxation during the period in which the building was regarded as unfit for use. The zinc roofing has not been removed but the thatched portion of the building has been removed. There was no covering but the frame was standing. It may be assumed for the purpose of argument that while the roof was off and until a new one could be put on, the building would not be available for use as a theatre.3. Now, it appears to be conceded that the defendant is liable for half tax and not for the full tax, because the building was in any event unoccupied during the period. He contends that he is liable for no taxation at all because he came within the protection of Section 73(2) of the District Municipalities Act IV ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.591
1. The plaintiff had a lease of the land in dispute from the defendant for a period of five years for Mica Mining purposes on the 6th May 1903 with the following clause. 'I bind myself to give you such leases as you may require from time to time after the expiration of this agreement on same conditions, should I fail to do so, I bind myself to pay you all your expenses that you incur,' The plaintiff entered into possession according to the terms of the lease and created certain structures on the land with a view to carry on the mining operations. But sometime in 1915 the defendant obtained a decree for possession of the land inasmuch as the present plaintiff had not, on the expiry of the term mentioned in the lease, taken out any renewal. There upon the plaintiff tailed upon the defendant on the 4th November 1916 to execute a lease for 5 years with the clause for renewal in the terms set out above but the defendant refused to grant any such renewal. The lessee then instituted this suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad545; (1921)40MLJ348
1. The appellants filed this suit seeking to establish their right as reversioners to the properties in the hands of the last male owner and for a declaration that the will-purporting to have been executed by the latter on the 30th November 1892 is not genuine. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He holds that Article 93 of the Limitation Act applies to the case and that time began to run from 6th October 1912. That was the date on which a written statement was filed by the widow in defence to a suit instituted by the present plaintiffs seeking to have a declaration that a certain compromise entered into with the tenants on the lands by the widow was not binding on them. In that statement she mentions among other facts in support of her defence that her husband had executed a will which is the one in question giving her absolute right to the property. But she never produced that will, nor did she ask for an issue to be framed for tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad51; (1921)40MLJ114
1. The items of property in dispute in this appeal, Nos. 5 to 7 were hypothecated by their owners, 1st and 2nd defendants, in 1897 by Exhibit II and mortgaged with possesion in 1901 by Exhibit III. In 1902 oneKrishna obtained a money decree against 1st and 2nd defendants and in 1906 brought to sale and himself purchased these items, but has not succeeded in obtaining possession. In 1913 however Exhibits V and VI purpoting to be sale deeds of the property, were executed by 1st and 2nd defendants to one Siraimittan and 11th defendant, now represented by 8th, 13th and 14th defendants, the present appellants, with recitals showing that the two documents were really interdependent, the consideration consisting in the discharge of Exhibits II and III and the payment of Rs. 200 to 1st and 2nd defendants for payment to Krishnier ' in discharge of the amount of his auction sale certificate ' that is, as appellants say, as consideration for the repurchase from him of the property. In fact only E...
Tag this Judgment!