Chennai Court January 1921 Judgments
Sambasiva Pillai and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad537; (1921)41MLJ109
Ayling, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by Government to obtain possession as an escheat of the property of one Shanmuga Yogeswaraswami. The facts found are that the latter was a Sudra ascetic, not entitled to enter the order of Yati or Sanyasi: that the suit property was his secular property, not endowed in favour of any institution: that he died leaving no relations: and that 4th defendant was his chief ' Sishya ' or disciple. The sole question for our decision is whether the claims of the 4th defendant to inherit as 'Sishya' are sufficient to stop the escheat to Government. Both the lower courts decided in favour of Government. Defendants 1 and 3 who have acquired the rights of 4th defendant by purchase, appeal.2. Both the lower court's have decided the question as if it were concluded by the ruling in Dharmapuram Pandara Sannadhi v. Virapandyam Pillai but as a matter of fact that has no application to the present case. Appellants here reply on the passage in Yajnavalky...
Tag this Judgment!Sababathi Pathan Vs. Perumal Padayachi and anr. and Natese thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ554
1. We are not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge acted irregularly either in admitting additional evidence in appeal or in inspecting the site. The Judge gave substantial reasons for admitting additional evidence in the shape of public records.2. The decisions in Rai Kishori Ghose v. Kumudini Kanta Ghose (1912) 14 I.C. 377. Avant Lal Sahu v. Gokul Sahu (1916) 35 I.C. 344 and Dawulla Prasad v. Makhu Lal (1919) 52 I.C. 241 have been quoted in support of the argument that it is illegal for a court to hold a local enquiry.3. The two latter are judgments of single judges and in all these cases the decisions are based on the omission from Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the words that occured in Section 392 of the old Code which provided for the issue of a commission for a local investigation only in cases where it could not be conveniently conducted by the Judge in person. Two of the learned Judges relied also on the English practice in such matters. In India we...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Varadaraja Sooru Harischendana Deo Bahadur Zemindar of Tar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad119(1); (1921)40MLJ466
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised in this case, namely, that no second appeal lies having regard to Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To understand this objection, I shall state these material facts. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us is the proprietor of Tarla Estate and a landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act. The defendant is the holder of about 2 acres of wet land called ' Kheta Jeroyati Kotwal land ' in some place in some of the Muchilikas Exhibits A and B series but it is treated as jeroyati or ordinary ryoti land in fixing and charging assessment thereon. That it has been treated as ordinary jeroyati land from about 1906 by both the Zemindar and by the defendant's father who was then a tenant cannot be denied. The proprietor seems to have made a reference to the land as ' Kheta Kotwal, ' that is, as once having been held on service tenure with some object which it is not necessary to find out definitely for the purpose of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathy Pathan Vs. Perumal Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad323; (1921)ILR44Mad640
1. We are not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge acted irregularly either in admitting additional evidence in appeal or in inspecting the site. The Judge gave substantial reasons for admitting additional evidence in the shape of public records.2. Rai Kishori Ghose v. Kumudini Kanta Ghose (1912) 14 I.C. 377 , Avant Lal Sahu v. Gokul Sahu (1916) 35 I.C., 344 and Dawarka Prasad v. Makhu Lal (1918) 62 I.C. 241 have been quoted in support of the argument that it is illegal for a Court in person to hold a local inquiry.3. The two latter are judgments of single Judges and in all these cases the decisions are based on the omission from Order XXVI, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the words that occurred in Section 392 of the Old Code, which provided for the issue of a commission for a local investigation only in cases where it could not be conveniently conducted by the Judge in person. Two of the learned Judges relied also on the English practice in such matters. In India w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad458; (1921)ILR44Mad913
ORDER1. The appellant in this case has been convicted and fined for an offence under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, wrongful restraint of the person. The facts appear to be these. The appellant was a Village Magistrate and on the day in question his attention was drawn to the misconduct of one Mari Goundan. Mari Goundan is described as having been very drunk. He tore the sacred thread of one of the witnesses and, subsequently, at what stage of the proceeding it is not quite clear, bit the appellant, the Village Magistrate, in the foot. Thereupon, the Village Magistrate with the help of several persons tied his hands and removed him to the police station.2. The lower appellate Court took the view that there was nothing in the conduct of Mari Goundan which justified the action of the appellant, on the ground that the evidence disclosed that Mari Goundan was drank and probably disorderly, which is a non-cognizable offence. An argument has (been addressed to us to show that under various ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodara Padhano Vs. Haribhandhu Patnaick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad406; 70Ind.Cas.392
ORDERSpencer, J.1. At the hearing of this application, to review the judgment given by Mr. Justice Bakewell and myself in Second Appeal No. 1928 of 1918 it was argued.1. That it was competent for the appellant to prefer a single combined appeal against the preliminary and final decrees if the dates permitted him to do so;2. That the grounds of appeal to the District Court referred to both the preliminary and final decrees;3. That the Court-fee calculated upon the amount ascertained and embodied in the final decree was sufficient to enable the appellants to appeal against the preliminary decree also.4. The first two contentions are right and do not require to be refuted. The first is supported by the decision of Balwantsing Ramchandra v. Sakharam Mancharam 33 Ind. Cas. 137 note; Daitatraya v. Ajmuddin 33 Ind. Cas. 146 . In our judgment, which is sought to be reviewed, it was conceded that the appellant in the District Court was entitled to appeal from both decrees and that he was not to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramasami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.652
ORDER1. The appellant in this case has been convicted and fined for an offence under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, wrongful restraint of a person. The facts appear to be these. The appellant was a Village Magistrate on the day in question his attention was drawn to the misconduct of one Mari Goundan. Mari Goundan is described as having been very drunk. He tore the scared thread of one of the witnesses and, subsequently, at what stage of the proceeding it is not quite clear, hit the appellant, the Village Magistrate, in the foot. Thereupon the Village Magistrate with the help of several persons tied his hands and removed him to the Police Station.2. The Court of Appeal took the view that there was nothing in the conduct of Mari Goundan whish justified the action of the appellant on the ground that the evidence disclosed that Mari Goundan was drunk and probably disorderly which is a non-cognizable offense. An argument has been addressed to us to show that, under various Regulations of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bolisetti Mamayya Vs. Buragadda Venkateswaralu and anr. and Kolla Kota ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad294; (1921)40MLJ570
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of an order of the District Judge, Guntur, adjudicating a father and two of his sons, styled respondents 1, 2, and 3, as insolvents. The petitioner in insolvency was a creditor of the father and may also be treated as the creditor of his three sons (Respondents 2, 3 and 4) for the purpose of these appeals. He applied for adjudicating the father and his major sons, the 2nd and 3rd respondents as insolvents and did not pray that the minor 4th respondent should also be made an insolvent. He alleged in his petition vaguely that the ' Respondents ' transferred their immoveable properties under six documents, Exhibits A to F in September and November 19I8 to their relations and friends, either nominally without consideration or with a view to fraudulently perfer the alienees who are their relations and friends and that therefore the ' Respondents ' have committed acts of insolvency within the meaning of Clauses (B) and (C) of Section 4 o...
Tag this Judgment!Bolisetti Mamayya Vs. Kolla Kottayya, Kommurri Ramayya Rice Mill Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad616; (1921)ILR44Mad810
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of an order of the District Judge, Guntur, adjudicating a father and two of his sons styled respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as insolvents. The petitioner in insolvency was a creditor of the father and may also be treated, as the creditor of his three sons (respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4) for the purpose of these appeals. He applied for adjudicating the father and his major sons the second and the third respondents as insolvents and did not pray that the minor fourth respondent should also be made an insolvent. He alleged in his petition vaguely 'that the respondents' transferred their immoveable properties under six documents, Exhibits A to F, September and November 1918 to their relations and friends either nominally without consideration or with a view to fraudulently prefer the alienees who were their relations and friends and that therefore the 'respondents' have committed acts of insolvency within the meaning of Clauses (b) and (c) o...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Kadiresan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad488; (1921)41MLJ198
Spencer, J.1. Relying on the Full Bench case in Venkataratnam v. Ranganayakanima 35 M.L.J. 335 Mr. Krishna-swamy Aiyar asks us to hold that the District Munsif's order dismissing 1st defendant's claim petition on 15-6-14 became final in consequence of 1st defendant's failure to set it aside by instituting a suit within one year. This point was not raised until the present suit reached the stage of the first appeal and might be disallowed on that ground.2. But it may be answered directly as the Lower Appellate Court allowed it to be argued and as we have heard full arguments in this Court.3. In Venkatratnam v. Ranganayakamrna 35 M.L.J. 335 Seshagiri Iyer J, observed. ' The language of Order 21, Rule 63 leaves little room for doubt that all orders which negative the right set up by the claimant or the decree holder are within the rule.'4. Was then the District Mun%if's order dated 15-6-14 one that negatived the claimant's right. It runs thus: 'Sale stopped. The claim cannot be investigat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »