Chennai Court November 1921 Judgments
Balarama Naidu and Two ors. Vs. Sangan Naidu and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad280
1. These appeals must be treated as appeals against a final decree under Order XX, Rule 12(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure and an ad valorem Court-fee must be charged under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act calculated on the amount of mesne profits in dispute....
Tag this Judgment!irulappan Servai Vs. Veerappan Alias Kaluvandan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad637; (1922)42MLJ113
1. The Officiating Chief Justice: The suit lands in this case were brought to sale under the Madras Estates Land Act in 1914 for arrears of rent and bought in by the Zemin Revenue Inspector. They were sold by the latter to the plaintiff on the 28th of August 1915 and delivered over on the 16th November 1915 According to plaintiff they were subsequently trespassed on by defendants and he sued for possession with mesne profits and damages. The defence raised was that the lands were the property of the 6th defendant by right of purchase from the 3rd defendant who in his turn had acquired title by virtue of a court auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree against the original ryot who defaulted in his rent. This Court auction was as long ago as 1911 and it is admitted that neither 3rd nor 6th defendant took steps under Section 146 of the Madras Estates Land Act to obtain transfer of tenancy in their favour although it is stated that on one occasion in 1913 the Zatnin Revenue Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponniah Thirumali Vandaya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ49
ORDERKumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The petitioners were charged under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the first class Magistrate of Sivakasi discharged the accused as he was opinion that no prima facie case was made out. On revision the District Magistrate directed the accused to be committed for trial to the Sessions Court. He was of opinion that if theft was the common object of the rioters the offence becomes one of dacoity and so triable exclusively by the Court of Session. He was also of opinion that the Magistrate is bound to commit if there is any evidence in support of the charge.2. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the District Magistrate. In the present case the First Class Magistrate has written a careful judgment in which he discussed the evidence on the side of the prosecution and comes to the conclusion that it is not trustworthy. The District Magistrate does not go into the evidence and says that the Magistrate's appreciation of the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Adaikkan and ors. Vs. Mallakaruppan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad188; 65Ind.Cas.853
ORDERKumarasawmi Sastri, J.1. I cannot help remarking that the order of the Magistrate might have been much clearer. The Magistrate in paragraph 5 thinks that counter petitioners were allowed to be in possession from the date of the decree in 1907 till delivery of possession was given in 1916 by Exhibit B. This would imply that the opposite side got possession afterwards, but the Magistrate says lower down that he was not satisfied that the decree-holder was in possession subsequent to the delivery in 1916, He thinks the oral evidence on both sides is not very trustworthy, but having considered the evidence on both sides and the documentary evidence afforded by the decree order for possession and kist receipts he thinks the version of No. 1 party as to possession was more probable.2. A great deal has been made of the halting opinion of the Magistrate, and it is argued that the case is one under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate not being able to find who is ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponniah Tirumali Vandaya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.993
ORDERKumarasami Sastri, J.1. The petitioners were charged under Sections 147, 118, 379 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and the First Class Magistrate of Sivakasi discharged the accused as he was of opinion that no prima facie case was made cut. On revision the District Magistrate directed the accused to be committed for trial to the Sessions Court. He was of opinion that if theft was the common object of the rioters the offense becomes one of dacoity and so triable exclusively by the Court of Session. He was also of opinion that the Magistrate is bound to commit if there is any evidence in support of the charge.2. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the District Magistrate. In the present case the First Class Magistrate has written a careful judgment in which he discussed the evidence on the side of the prosecution and comes to the conclusion that it is not untrustworthy. The District Magistrate does not go into the evidence and says that the Magistrate's appreciation of the eviden...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rama Patter Vs. Viswanatha Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.155
Krishnan, J.1. The two acknowledgments made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the account book, Exhibit B, are of no avail to save limitation against the joint family or against defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who were no parties to those acknowledgments. The District Judge has found on the evidence in this case that defendant No. 3, the father and managing member of the family, never ceased to be the manager, and never authorised any one else to act for him to manage and never held out any one as acting for him. This is a finding of fact which, I think, we mast accept in second appeal. It was, however, contended that, even apart from any authority given by the third defendant, his son, the first defendant, was entitled under the Hindu Law to act as the manager of the family in the absence of his father in Burma and elsewhere. For this position, reliance was placed on the ruling in Mudit Narayan Singh v. Ranglal Singh 29 C. 797, and on the texts cited therein, particularly on that of Harita, The ...
Tag this Judgment!Al. Ar. Rm. Arunachalara Chettiar Vs. B. Rajaeswara Sethupathi Alias M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ74
Oldfield, J.1. The question for the determination of which this rehearing on review was granted, is whether the lower Court erred in awarding to plaintiff the amount due from the 1st defendant as rent of the suit property for faslis 1323 and 1324 with interest thereon,2. No objection is now taken to the confirmation of the decision of the Lower Court in plaintiff's favour as to the principal amount claimed as rent; and the facts necessary for appreciation of the argument regarding interest can be stated shortly. Plaintiff's father leased property to 2nd and 3rd defendants for forty years and afterwards leased the same property to 1st defendant in perpetuity. That contract provided for 1st defendant's right to collect the rent from 2nd and 3rd defendants, until their lease expired, and his duty to pay it over to plaintiff. Disputes arose and plaintiff brought a suit for the cancellation of 1st Defendant's lease, which was compromised by a decree for inter alia payment by 1st defendant o...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Tanjore Vs. M.R. Venkatrama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad31; (1922)42MLJ361
William Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. The Officiating Chief Justice. Only two points have been raised in Appeal. It is contended that where rateable distribution has been ordered under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure the exception to Section 51(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act only applies to the amount credited in favour of the attaching decree holder and not to the amounts rateably distributed to the other decree-holders under the section. No authority is quoted and we can find nothing in the wording of Section 51 to support such a view; nor is any reason suggested for such a differentiation. The learned Counsel for Appellant wished to refer to various English Rulings dealing with Section 45 of the English Bankruptcy Act of 1883; but the difference between this section and Section 51. of the Indian Act are so great that we feel unsafe in taking them as a guide. The other contention is that the amounts lying in Court should be treated as still the money of the Insolvent, which the...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Setupati Alias Muthuramalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.257
Oldfield, J.1. The question for the determination of which this re-hearing on review was granted is, whether the lower Court erred. in awarding to plaintiff the amount due from the first defendant as rent of the suit property for Faslis 1323 and 1324, with interest thereon.2. No objection is now taken to the confirmation of the decision of the lower Court in plaintiff's favour ,as to the principal amount claimed as rent, and the facts necessary for appreciation of the argument regarding interest can be stated shortly. Plaintiff's father' leased property to second and third defendants for forty years and afterwards leased the same property to first defendant in. perpetuity. That contract provided for first defendant's right to collect the rent from the second and third defendants, until their lease expired, and his duty to pay it over to plaintiff. Disputes arose and plaintiff brought a suit for the cancellation of first defendant's lease, which was compromised by a decree for, inter-al...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Tanjore Vs. M.R. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.512
1. Only two points have been raised in appeal. It is contended that where rateable distribution has been ordered under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the exception to Section 51 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act only applies to the amount credited in favour of the attaching decree holder and not to the amounts rate ably distributed to the other decree holders under the section. No authority is quoted and we tan find nothing in the wording of Section 51 to support such a view; nor is any reason suggested for such a differentiation. The learned Counsel for the appellant wished to refer to various English rulings dealing with Section 45 of the English Bankruptcy Act of 1883 : bat the difference between this section and Section 51 of the Indian Act are so great i bat we feel unsafe in taking them as a guide. The other contention is that the amounts lying in Court should be treated as still the money of the insolvent, which the Official Receiver tan claim for the benefit of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›