Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)ILR43Mad905
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff, the South Indian Railway Company, Ltd., is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for recovery back of the total of the sums paid by the Railway Company to the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly between March 1912 and November 1914, for what are called private scavenging services performed by the Municipality for the Railway Company. I find that they are called 'scavenging fees' in the relevant notices, reports and bills (see for example Exhibit J.).2. The Railway Company owns stations and offices at the Junction and Fort of Trichinopoly. There are several latrines and urinals in these places, and the washings and the nightsoil are collected by the railway authorities through the railway coolies into certain receptacles and a repository and into cisterns, the urinals being drained into cisterns. The Municipality owns carts and bulls, and employs drivers to drive the carts to the Municipal nightsoil depot which is situated at a distance of 5 1/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.697
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, the South Indian Railway Company, Limited, is the appellant before us. The suit was brought for recovery of the total of the sums paid by the Railway Company to the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly between March 1912 and November 1914 for what are sailed private scavenging services performed by the Municipality for the Railway Company. I find that they are called scavenging fees in the relevant notices, reports and bills (See for example Exhibit J).2. The Railway Company own stations and offices at the Junction and Fort of Trichinopoly. There are several latrines and urinals in these places, and the washings and the night soil are collected by the Railway authorities through the Railway coolies into certain receptacles and a repository and into cisterns, the urinals being drained into cisterns. The Municipality owns carts and bulls and employs drivers to drive the carts to the Municipal night-soil-depot, which is situated at a distance of 5 1/2 or 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 71Ind.Cas.390
1. This litigation has taken a somewhat unfortunate course, but we feel bound to give effect to the clear legal principles which, in our judgment, apply to the case. The plaintiff obtained leave to institute a suit against the first defendant on a mortgage by the first defendant of certain properties, one of which was alleged to be within the original jurisdiction of this Court. Here, I may say in passing that it appears to us to make no difference whatever as to the jurisdiction of this Court whether or not the mortgagor bad a good title to the property situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, What he did was, he mortgaged his interest, such as it was, in immoveable property situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that, in our opinion, Was quite sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction to give leave. However, that is really not a question which arises here. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against the first defendant and having apparently heard that the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.212
1. A preliminary objection was taken in this appeal as to the. right of the respondent to be heard, with reference to an order made by Mr. Justice Spencer sitting in the Admission Court excusing the delay of the appellant in applying for leave to appeal as a pauper. It has been argued before us that, seeing that the appeal was presented within the time prescribed for the filing of appeals, the respondent was not really prejudiced, and other arguments to the same effect were urged before us. We are not prepared to accept this contention. It has been held by the Privy Council in Krishnasami Panikondar v. Ramasami Chettiar 43 Ind. Cas. 493, that, as regards orders of single Judges excusing the delay in the presentation of an appeal 'it must, therefore, in common fairness be regarded as a tacit term of an order like the present that, though unqualified in expression, it should be open to re-consideration at the instance of the party prejudicially affected, and this view is sanctioned by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.580
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He porabaped the plaint lands 44 cents., besides two other properties, for Rs. 500, on the 9th April 1901 under Exhibit A from Subramaniya Asari who was then involved in debt. The three properties were worth Rs. 1,200 and it is found by both the lower Courts that the conveyance to the plaintiff was intended to defraud the creditors of Subramaniya Asari. The Court of first instance held that the sale was a sham transaction but the lower Appellate Court held that it was intended to be a real transaction (though also intended to defeat the creditors) and that the whole of the consideration was paid.2. As regards the defendant's sale-deeds it was for Rs. 275 executed by the same Subramaniya Asari in August 1912, about 16 months after the plaintiff obtained his sale-deed. The defendant's sale deed related only to the plaint item of 44 cents and the purchase money was Rs. 275. Out of this amount of Rs. 275, Rs. 75 was due on a mortgage of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad135; 61Ind.Cas.815
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the judgment-debtor in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin to record satisfaction. In Small Cause Suit No. 932 of 1917 the second respondent before me obtained a decree against the decree holder in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918. The decree of the first respondent against the petitioner was dated 9th April 1918. The second respondent applied for attachment of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 on the 10th April 1918. The order was made on the 22nd April 1918. The petitioner's case is that without knowledge of the attachment he paid the amount to the decree-holder on the 25th May 1918 and obtained a receipt therefor. He files the receipt in Court and asks that satisfaction may be entered.2. The decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1918 does not appear to oppose this application for satisfaction. It is opposed by the decree-bolder in Small Cause Suit No. 932 of 1917 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1921)ILR44Mad43
Krishnan, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 55 of the Estates Land Act, I of 1908, to obtain a patta from the defendant--the landholder for the plaint land. Plaintiff's case was that he obtained the occupancy right by purchase of the rights of the previous ryot, one Kaliappan Servai, some years ago and that he was paying the rent due, though the patta remained in the latter's name. Kaliappan died some time ago leaving his widow, one Kaliammai, Plaintiff recently made an application under Section 146 of the Estates Laud Act jointly with Kaliammai for the transfer of patta to his name, but the defendant refused it. Hence the suit. Defendant pleaded that some time ago he had recognized one Perianayagi as the ryot on a joint application by herself and Kaliammai alleging that the occupancy right had. been sold to her by one Muthu Servai, a nephew and heir of Kaliappa, that he had issued a patta in her name and that having done so, he was not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.123
1. It bas been argued before us that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the application by the Official Receiver under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act was not barred by limitation, and that, in reality, it was so barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. We think The District Judge's conclusion is right though upon a ground different from what he has taken. We are of opinion that that Article does not apply to an application like the present one It has been held more than once in this Court that Article 178 of the Limitation Art of 1877, which corresponds to Article 181 of the present Act, applied only to application? under the Civil Procedure Code. See Janaki v. Kesavalu 8 M. 207 . and Gnanamttthu Upadesi v. Vana Koilpillai Nadan 17 U. 379. This view has also been accepted by the other High Court. See Rahmat Karim v. Abdul Karim 34 C. 672. connect v. Himalaya Bank Limited 18 A. 12 Ali Ahmad v. Naziran Bibi 24 A. 542 . and Baimanekbai v. Manekji Kava...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad407; 61Ind.Cas.530; (1920)39MLJ586
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the proprietor of a certain Inam in the Ganjam District against his agent for an account of the collections made by him in two villages, Agu and Konabhaghu. During the continuance of the suit, after the issues were framed, the agent (the firsi defendant) died, and his legal representatives, defendants Nos. 2 to 4, were brought on record and the suit continued against them. The District Munsif found that the first defendant had failed to account for a sum of Rs. 282 and odd per annum and gave the plaintiff a decree for a lump sum of Rs. 4,691-14-0, being the sum misappropriated or not accounted for, for ten years at the rate of Rs. 282 and odd per annum. The District Judge thought that the suit though filed against the agent stood upon a different footing, when it was continued against his representatives. He observed that 'plaintiff was bound to prove by positive evidence that defendant had received the money for which they (his representatives) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ490
1. The question for our decision is whether the Small Cause Court haa jurisdiction to dispose of this case or whether it falls under Clause (g) of Section 19 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (Act 15 of 1882.) We agree with the learned Judges of the Small Cause Court that it does not. The suit as framed is certainly not one for the determination of a right or interest in immoveable property but simply to recover certain stones forming part of a well and said to have been wrongfully removed, or to recover their value. Defendant claimed title in the well, and the land in which it was situate and it was doubtless necessary to determine this question of title in order to dispose of the suit But we do not think this affects the character of the suit or brings it within the scope of Section 19(g) Vide the decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pattangowdi v. Nilkanth Kala Deshpande I.L.R.(1913) B. 676. We have been referred to a case of this Court in Tirupadi Raju v. Vissam Raj...
Tag this Judgment!