Chennai Court October 1921 Judgments
P. Ellapa Naidu and anr. Vs. Boologachary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad97; (1922)42MLJ359
1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the sale of the plaint land to the 3rd defendant by the 1st and 2nd defendants is void and to recover possession of the land from the 3rd defendant. Plaintiffs sue as representatives of the pattadars and mirasdars of the village, alleging that the land is blacksmith's unenfranchised inam, Defendants 1 and 2 were, until shortly before the suit, when they were removed from service by the plaintiffs, the inamdars. Something was said in the lower courts as to the nature of the inam as to whether it consisted in the melwaram or in that and the kudivaram. Both sides are agreed however that it consisted only in the melwaram; but they differ as to the ownership of the kudivaram, plaintiffs contending that it is theirs, and defendants that, notwithstanding that the village is situated in the Chingleput District, it belongs to Government, The lower appellate Court has, we think, found on this question in favour of the defendants. For, al...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.B. Mahammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ72
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Sessions Judge finds that the accused took away the coal of the girl but acquits him as he was of opinion that the accused was insane when he committed the act. Reading the judgment as a whole, I think there is a specific finding that the accused committed the act complained of and the provisions of Section 470, Criminal Procedure Code have been complied with.2. He was however wrong in not having passed orders under Section 471. Mr. Adam, Public Prosecutor, contends that the High Court has no power to pass orders and that the case must go back to the lower court. He relies on Section 439, clause 4, Cr. P. Code which prevents the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, I do not think that the passing of an order under Section 471 after an acquittal has been recorded, can be said to alter a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The acquittal is maintained but in view of the desirability of keeping the accused from...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Mahammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad54; 65Ind.Cas.423
ORDER1. The Sessions Judge finds that the accused took away the coat of the girl but acquits him as he was of opinion that the accused was insane when he committed the act. Reading the judgment as a whole, I think there is a specific finding that the accused committed the act complained of and the provisions of Section 470, Criminal Procedure Code, have been complied with.2. He was, however, wrong in not having passed orders under Section 471. Mr. Adam, Public Prosecutor, contends that the High Court has no power to pass orders and that the case must go back to the lower Court. He relies on Section 4(sic)9, Clause 4, Criminal Procedure Code, which prevents the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. I do not think the passing of an order under Section 471 after an acquittal has been recorded, can be said to alter a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, The acquittal iS maintained, but, in view of the desirability of keeping the accused from furt...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed HussaIn Sahib and 2 ors. Vs. Pachayappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ147
ORDER1. The preliminary order was passed on the 21st March 1921. The Magistrate finds that the counter petitioner was in possession on the 16th March 1921 but there is no finding as to who was in possession on the 21st March. It is argued that the order passed is illegal owing to there being no finding as to who was in possession on the 21st March 1921 as required by Section 145 Clause (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thumbalabed Hampanna v. Parisi Gangamma (1915) 27 I.C. 911, and Mandalamany Ellamandu v. Chinna Venkiah (1909) 9 Cr. L.J. 505, support this contention. There is no doubt that the order is irregular, as it does not find that the Counter petitioner was in possession on the 21st March.2. The question remaining is whether on the facts of the present case; I should set aside the order. The interval between the date when the Magistrate finds counter petitioner to be in possession and the date of the preliminary order is only five days and there is nothing in the record to...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Pillai and anr. Vs. C.D. Devasahayam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1921
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.344
1. The lower Courts were right in following Venkatasami v. Kristaya 16 M. 341and dismissing the suit The cases relied on by appellants Nynakka Routhen V. Vavana Mahomed Naina 5 M.H.C.R. 123. Nallappa Reddi v. Ramalingachi Reddi 20 M. 250 and Chinna Krishna Reddi v. Dorasami Reddi 7 Ind. Dec. 13 are all distinguishable inasmuch as the documents sought to be replaced in those suits were burnt, lost or fraudulently suppressed by the defendants therein. In the present case the document was in the possession of plaintiffs from the time of execution and it was open to them at any time to apply to get it registered.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Linga Munisami Reddy Vs. P.S. Koindasami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.317
Spencer, J.1. The suit was brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the properties in Schedules A, B and C and for possession of the same with mesne profits. The properties in suit were joint family properties belonging to three brothers Linga Subba Reddi, Linga Rama Reddi and Linga Chenga Reddi, who were sons of Linga Pola Reddi. The plaintiff to son of the third son, Linga Chenga Reddi. Of the other two brothers, Rama Reddi died without male issue, and Subba Reddi, the elder brother, had one son Munisami Reddi, who died unmarried in 1909. All the properties in A Schedule including the family house were Sold to 1st defendant for RS. 400 in 1898 under Exhibit IX by Linga Rama Reddi Munisami Redi the son of Linga Subba Reddi. The properties in B Scheduled were sold to 1st defendant in 1903 under Exhibit XXIII by 3rd defendant Muniammal, who is a doughter of Linga Suba Reddi. The plaintiff, who is the son of Linga Chenga Reddi, is the sole surviving male member of the family...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Konan Vs. Kulandai Velu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad63; 70Ind.Cas.569
1. Appellant attacks the order of the Subordinate Judge on two grounds,-(1) that the respondent having himself caused the property to be brought to sale as that of the judgment-debtor is estopped from now claiming it from the auction-purchaser as his own;(2) that the sale has become absolute under Order XXI, Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. As regards the first argument, we must hold that the fact that respondent himself was under a mistake when he filed his sale application will not prevent an estoppel; Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha 20 C. 296 and unless it is found that appellant was not in fact misled, respondent must be held to be estopped. It is unnecessary to call for a finding as to this, however, because appellant is entitled to succeed on the second point. The sale was duly confirmed by order of the Court and became absolve under Order XXI, Rule 92. After that it could only be questioned by a person other than the judgment-debtor applying under Rule 100. Resp...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S.R.M.M.R.M. Velliappa Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ155
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Kumaraswamy Sastri, J. who disallowed the application of the Official Assignee to treat a certain letter of charge given by the firm of Appachi Chetty & Sons (who were adjudicated on 15th January 1919) to certain Nattukottai Chetties as (1) a fraudulent preference under Section 56 of the Insolvency Act (2) within the order and disposition portion of Section 52 of the Insolvency Act; (3) as within Section 55 of the Insolvency Act as being without consideration. The learned judge found against the Official Assignee on all these points and he appeals. Certain bales were pledged in October 1918 by the Insolvent firm to Egappa Chetty to whom the former owed Rs. 1,35,000. These bales were deposited with the pledgee and the validity of this pledge is in no way questioned by the learned Advocate General who appeared for the Official Assignee. The question is as to the balance remaining after the pledgee has taken his debt out of the money rea...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S.R.M.M.R.M. Valliappa Chetti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad144; (1922)ILR65Mad238
Odgers, J.1. This is an Appeal from the judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., who disallowed the application of the Official Assignee to treat a certain letter of charge given by the firm of Appachi Chetti & Sons (who were adjudicated on 15th January 1919) to certain Nattukottai Chettis as (1) a fraudulent preference under Section 59 of the Insolvency Act; (2) within the order and disposition portion of Section 52 of the Insolvency Act; (3) as within Section 55 of the Insolvency Act as 'being without consideration. The learned Judge found against the Official Assignee on all these points and he appeals. Certain bales were pledged in October 1918 by the insolvent firm to Egappa Chetti to whom the former owed Rs, 1,35,000. These bales were deposited with the pledgee and the validity of this pledge is in no way 18 questioned by the learned Advocate-General who, appeared for the Official Assignee. The question is as to the balance remaining after the pledgee has taken his debt out of the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Muthusami Naicken by Next Friend Naga Naicken Vs. Pulavaratal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ101
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks for a declaration that he is the adopted son of the deceased Amtnasi Naicken and is entitled to the properties mentioned in the schedule which belonged to Ammasi Naicken in his lifetime.2. Ammasi naicken died on the 13th of November 1915 of a carbuncle. It is alleged that, on the morning of the day when he died, he adopted the minor plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased's second wife's brother, and that he associated the second wife who is 3rd defendant with him in the act of adoption. It may here be stated that Ammasi Naicken left three wives Pulavarthal, Sellayi and Poovayammal and that the first wife has been living apart from him for about 25 years. As doubts were thrown upon the said adoption, it is alleged that the 3rd defendant went through the ceremony of adopting the plaintiff a second time on the 3rd of December 1917. The Subordinate Judge found that the adoption alleged to have been made by Ammasi Naicken was not true and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »