Chennai Court August 1920 Judgments
Alaji Iseek Sahib and anr. Vs. Vengu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.66
1. The facts antecedent to this case are thus summarised by the learned District Judge: 'The first defendant's late husband obtained a decree against two persona, Munisami and Arumugam, and attached certain property and brought it to sale on 20th August 1906. The plaintiff purchased certain items and paid the money which was applied to the decree In rate able distributions. A third party then sued the plaintiff and from defendant's late husband. The suit was dismissed in 1907, but the first appeal was allowed in 1910 and the second appeal confirmed this in 1912. It was declared that the judgment debtors had no saleable interest; and the sale was, therefore, set aside.2. On this, plaintiff sued to recover from first defendant, as the representative of her late husband, the portion of the sale price paid by him, which had been paid over to her husband in rateable distribution. The District Munsif dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The District Judge, on appeal held that the suit was...
Tag this Judgment!Taluk Board Vs. Srimanth Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad92; 61Ind.Cas.497; (1921)40MLJ91
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the Taluk Board of Bandar appeals against the decree of the lower courts, by which it has been restrained from filling up three tanks belonging to the respondent., the Zemindar of Challapalli. The Board purported to act under Section 100 of the Madras Act V of 1SS4 by which 'The Taluk Board may, by notice, require the owner of any tank or well to cleanse, fence, repair or fill it up, if, on inspection, it appears likely to be dangerous, or prove injurious to the health of the neighbourhood. ' It appears that there were reports of the District Medical and Sanitary Officer before the Board to the effect, that the tanks in question were injurious to the health of the villagers and the President of the Board also inspected the tanksand; it may be taken that the Board came to the conclusion that the existence of the tanks in their present condition was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.2. I am prepared to proceed, for the purposes of this judgment, ...
Tag this Judgment!Taluk Board Vs. Zamindar of Chellapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad156
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the Taluk Board of Bandar appeals against the decree of the Lower Courts by which it has been restrained from filling up three tanks belonging to the respondent, the Zamindar of Chellapalli. The Board purported to act under Section 100 of the Madras Act V of 1884 by which:The Taluk Board may, by notice, require the owner of any tank or well to cleanse, fence, repair or fill it up if, on inspection, it appears likely to be dangerous, or prove injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.2. It appears that there were reports of the District Medical and Sanitary Officer before the Board to the effect that the tanks in question were injurious to the health of the villagers and the President of the Board also inspected the tanks and it may be taken that the Board came to the conclusion that the existence of the tanks in their present condition was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.3. I am prepared to proceed, for the purposes of this judgment, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Subbasari and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad47
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. Sanction was granted by the Second-class Magistrate of Avanashi to prosecute the petitioners under Section 198, Indian Penal Code, because their evidence before him as committing Magistrate in a murder case was opposed to what was alleged to have been their statements taken by the police at their investigation. There can be no doubt that if the statements before the police were properly proved either before the Magistrate, when he performed the duty of a committing Magistrate in the murder case, or before him when he was inquiring into this sanction petition, he had sufficient materials on which to base a grant of sanction for the prosecution of petitioners for an offence under Section 193 so far as the statements made before him were concerned, no separate sanction being necessary to prosecute the petitioners for the perjury in the alternative committed by them in their statements to the police: see In re Fakir Mohideen (1909). 5 M.L.T., 855.2. There seems to have...
Tag this Judgment!Surampalli Ramamurthi Vs. Surampali Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.144
Odgers, J.1. The order of the Sub-ordinate Judge is sought to be impugned on the ground that a preliminary decree hiving been passed by consent in respect of the immoveable and the plaintiff having withdrawn his claim with regard to the moveable; there were no proceedings during a stage of which the Judge could transpose the parties as required by Order I, Rule 10, In my opinion, this contention cannot be upheld. The order of the Subordinate Judge says (paragraph 4): 'before the matter regarding partition of immoveable was Bnally disposed of,' the plaintiff put in his petition for leave to withdraw his claim to the moveable. The suit was clearly still going on and that was not one suit for partition of immoveable and another for that of moveable and it cannot be said that, by the withdrawal' by the plaintiff of his claim for moveable, the suit name to an end. It seems to me that the very basis of allowing plaintiff to withdraw was to allow the eighth to tenth defendants to become plain...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subbasari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad453; 61Ind.Cas.228
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Sanction was granted by the Second Class Magistrate of Avanashi to prosecute the petitioners under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, because their evidence before him, as Committing Magistrate, in a murder case was opposed to what was alleged to have been their statements taken by the police at their investigation. There can be no doubt that, if the statements before the Police were properly proved either before the Magistrate when he performed the duty of a Committing Magistrate in the murder case or before him when he was inquiring into this sanction petition, he had sufficient materials on which to base a grant of sanction for the prosecution of petitioners for an offence under Section 193, so far as the statements made before him were concerned, no separate sanction being necessary to prosecute the petitioners for the perjury in the alternative committed by them in their statements to the Police. See Fakir Mohideen F. Hartnett 1 Ind.Cas. 547 .2. There seems ...
Tag this Judgment!thennutti Kallingal Vunni MoidIn Vs. thennutti Kallingal Vunni MoidIn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.109; (1920)39MLJ626
1. The plaintiff resisted the execution of a decree for possession of the suit lands and, having had an order made against him under Order 21, Rule 98, instituted the present suit under Rule 103 'to establish the right which he claims to the present possession of the property ' failing which the right would have been lost under the terms of the rule. The plaintiff, who based his case both on possession and on title, alleged that the conveyance executed by him in 1899 in favour of the 1st defendant never took effect, and that, if it did, he had required a title by adverse possession before the date of the order against him under Rule 98. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that the title passed to the 1st defendant by the conveyance of 1899. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff having, as he found, been in possession at the date of the order under Rule 98, could not be ousted in execution of a decree to which he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Unni MoidIn Vs. Pocker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad317; (1921)ILR44Mad227
1. The plaintiff resisted the execution of a decree for possession of the suit lands, and having had an order made against him under Order XXI, Rule 98, instituted the present suit under Rule 103 'to establish the right which he claims to the present possession of the property,' failing which the right would have been lost under the terms of the rule. The plaintiff, who based his case both on possession and on title, alleged that the conveyance executed by him in 1899 in favour of the first defendant never took effect, and that, if it did, he had acquired a title by adverse possession before the date of the order against him under Rule 98. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the title passed to the first defendant by the conveyance of 1899. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff, having, as he found, been in possession at the date of the order under Rule 98, could not be ousted in execution of a decree to which he...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Naik and Sons, Merchants Vs. Cayyar Irvine and Co., Ltd., Glas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad67; (1921)40MLJ57
Ayling, J.1. The essential facts of this case are simple. Plaintiffs are merchants of Mangalore. In September-October 1915 their English agents shipped to them consignments of steel and soap by defendants' Steamship 'Clan Mackellar'. Freight was paid in advance. The 'Clan Mackellar' arrived at Bombay with the goods onboard on 3-11-1915. She was then requisitioned by the Government of India, and passed out of the hands of the defendant's company. Defendants after some correspondence and after being requested by the plaintiffs to send the goods down to Mangalore despatched them to that port by the S.S. 'Airemoor' belonging to the B.I.S.N. Co. They were delivered to plaintiffs in February 1916 on payment of freight from Bombay to Mangalore, and sundry other charges. Plaintiffs sued to recover these charges amounting to Rs. 2,470 with interest from defendants' company.2. Both the lower courts have agreed in dismissing plaintiffs' suit : and I think they are clearly right.3. It is settled l...
Tag this Judgment!Puthia Veetil Moidu Vs. Irakkatt Karnavan Raman Nayar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ572
1. The only question is whether a decree holder can plead his application for copy of decree as an application to the Court 'to take some step-in-aid of execution.' We agree with the District Judge that it cannot be so treated. There is no necessary connection between obtaining a copy and utilising it for the purpose of execution ; and we do not think it can be said that the Court, in granting the copy takes any step in-aid of execution.2. This appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »