Chennai Court November 1921 Judgments
Raja Rao Vs. Ananthanarayanan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad228; 67Ind.Cas.369; (1922)42MLJ308
William Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. Appellants in this case are purchasers in court auctions, who have been deprived of their properties owing to the cancellation of the sales and who now seek restitution of the sums paid by them which have been rateably distributed among certain persons (respondents) holding decrees against the judgment-debtors. The District Munsif directed these persons to refund to appellant the amounts received by them; but his order was set aside on appeal to the District Judge, who held that appellants were not entitled to restitution either under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code or with reference to the Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for disposal of these appeals are these :--The properties were attached and brought to sale in execution of the decree in Small Cause No. 274 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura against one Mariyappan Chetti. ...
Tag this Judgment!Perianayagi Ammal Vs. A. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1924Mad316
Kumaraswami Sastry, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that she is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of house and ground No. 65, Kilava Chetti Street, Chintadripet, Madras, jointly with the 2nd defendant as daughter and heiress of her deceased father Shanmuga Mudaliar, for directing the 1st defendant to deliver possession of the said premises and to pay the plaintiff Rs. 378 for past mesne profits and future mesne profits at Rs. 10-8-0 a month, for a division of the house between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, for costs and other reliefs.2. The case for the plaintiff is that Shanmuga Mudaliar, her father died in December, 1912, leaving a will, dated the 11th of November, 1911, whereby he bequeathed to his daughter Logambal Ammal, wife of the 1st defendant, the house specified in the plaint to be enjoyed by her during her life and to devolve on her children at her death, that the will does not contain any gift over in the case of Logambal Ammal dying wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sitalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad70(1); 65Ind.Cas.797
1. The only question for our decision in this appeal is, whether the case falls under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Rajah Iyer has argued that it does not, because the abatement was not set aside in appeal but by means of separate proceedings. As regards this, we are content to follow the ruling in Tangulur Subbarayudu v. Yerramsetti Seshasani 33 Ind. Cas. 739 and to hold that 'section 144 is not confined to cases where restitution is claimed on the reversal of the decree in first or second appeal, provided the decree is varied or reversed the section applies, however the reversal or variance has been effected.' In this case the order of abatement was undoubtedly set aside by the order of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal.2. It was next argued that the order of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal did not affect the order of the Subordinate Judge awarding costs to the defendants. This order as to costs is a necessary corollary to the order declaring the case to have abate...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Aiyasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ340
1. This appeal arises out of a somewhat curious case. The plaintiff Venkatraroa Aiyar was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to transportation for life. On the eve of departure for Port Blair he executed a deed of gift in favour one Singam Aiyar a relation of his. This was on 23-5-1900. The deed of gift omitting unnecessary words, runs as follows: 'You, Singam Aiyar, should obtain possession of and enjoy the undermentioned moveable and immoveable properties with the rights of gift, sale etc. In case my sentence should terminate and I should come back to my village, you should hand over the said properties to me. If I should not return you should get the undermentioned properties. You should discharge the debts due by me from my property and also collect the debts due to me.' Four years afterwards on 20-6-1904, Singam Aiyar sold certain of the immoveable properties, which are the subject matter of the present suit, to the defendants. Singam Aiyar died subsequently. Plaint...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Umayyathantagath Puthen Veetil Kunhi Kadir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad126; (1922)42MLJ108
1. The accused appeals against his conviction by the Special Tribunal sitting at present in the Malabar District of an offence punishable under Section 121 Indian Penal Code and his sentence to be hanged and to forfeit his property.2. The first point taken is that the sanction of the local Government which is required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is defective in that it does not specify with sufficient clearness the section or the offence in respect of which it is given. The sanction is Ex. B and it no doubt is a sanction for the prosecution of the accused in the alternative for offences under Section 121 or under Section 121-A Indian Penal Code. It is urged that a sanction in the alternative is not such as the law contemplates and the judgment of Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor I.L.R. (1909) C 467 is relied on. We respectfully and fully accept the observations of the learned Chief Justice to the effect that ' the sanction should be spe...
Tag this Judgment!Gattineni Peda Gopayya and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector of Tenali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad100; 67Ind.Cas.146; (1922)42MLJ298
1. The Acquiring Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,200 an acre, The widow Durgamma to whom the northern part of Survey No. 575 belonged at the time claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,400 an acre. After she had surrendered the estate to her husband's reversioners they claimed Rs. 2 1/2 a square yard, but the District Judge held that he was precluded by Section 25(1) of Act 1 of 1894 from awarding a higher amount than that claimed by the widow. In appeal the reversioners ask to be compensated at the rate of Rs. l 1/2 a square yard.2. Upon the question of law, we are of opinion that Section 25 was designed with the purpose of holding claimants to their own bargains and of preventing demands being increased at every stage from the Collector to the High Court. The word 'applicant' in this section is used to describe the person who puts in a written application under Section 18 for having his objection to the Collector's award referred for determination by a Civil Court. He is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Umayyathantagatu Puthen Veetil Kunhi Kadir Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.859
1. The accused appeals against his conviction by the Special Tribunal sitting at present in the Malabar district, of an offense punishable under Section 121, Indian Penal Code, and his sentence to be hanged and to forfeit his property.2. The first point taken is, that the sanction of the Local Government which is required by Section 196 of the Code of (Criminal Procedure is defective in that it does not specify with sufficient clearness the section of the offence in respect of which it is given. The sanction is Exhibit B and it, no doubt, is a sanction for the prosecution of the accused in the alternative for offenses under Section 121 or under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code. It is urged that a sanction in the alternative is not such as the law contemplates and the judgment of Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor 7 Ind. Cas. 359 is relied on. We respectfully and fully accept the observations of the learned Chief Justice to the effect that, the sanction should...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Komaran and Govindaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.520; (1922)42MLJ21
ORDEROldfield, J.1. We are asked to interfere in revision with the conviction of accused of an offence punishable under Section 109(i) of Act IX of 1890 and their sentences, each to pay a fine of Rs. 5-0-0 or in default to suffer one week's simple imprisonment.2. There was some dispute as to the facts in the Lower Courts; but I take them as found to be that on 2nd May 1920 accused passengers at Mettupalayam Station by the Madras Mail train, entered and persisted tin remaining in a third class compartment, to which a card had been attached, purporting over the initials only of the Senior Ticket Examiner to reserve it for Europeans and Anglo-Indians. The questions argued before us are whether (1) the attaching of such a card could effect a reservation at all, (2) whether a reservation for Europeans and Anglo-Indians is, in the words of Section 109(1), a reservation for the use of another passenger, (3) whether a reservation for those classes is with reference to Section 42(2) within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pattar and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Alias Ammu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad57; 66Ind.Cas.858; (1922)42MLJ119
1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover certain lands with mesne profits for 25 years. No objection was raised by the defendants to the plaintiff's claim for the lands, and they have been decreed to her and there is no appeal about them. But as regards the profits', defendants denied their liability and pleaded limitation. To avoid the plea of limitation plaintiff's case was that defendants 1 and 2 were holding the lands and collecting the profits as her trustees and she relied on Section 10 of the Limitation Act.2. The Subordinate Judge who tried the case held that no express trust was made out, that defendants were only constructive trustees and that three years limitation was applicable to the claim for profits, apparently under Article 109. He further held that, as pleaded by the 2nd defendant, the profits for the last 9 years had been accounted for to the plaintiff and dismissed her claim in to to for past profits. The District Judge reversed t...
Tag this Judgment!Pitta Balaramanaidu and ors. Vs. Pitta Sangannaidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ184
1. These Appeals must be treated as appeals against a final decree under Order 20, Rule 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and an advalorem Court Fee must be charged under Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, calculated on the amount of mesne profits in dispute....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »