Chennai Court December 1921 Judgments
Vendnam Ramayya Vs. Kosuru Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ319
1. appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as purchaser from the reversionary heirs of one Mallabattudu to recover possession of the properties specified in the plaint and the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. Mallabattudu the last male holder of the properties died in 1889 leaving two daughters Ramamma and Govindamma. Ramamma died in 1914 and Govindamma who is the 5th defendant surrendered her estate to her sons who are the 6th and 7th defendants. They sold their rights to the plaintiff in this suit. The findings are that Mallabattudu, about two years before his death, made an oral gift of the suit properties to his grandson Punnayya the son of his daughter Ramamma, that the properties were managed by Subbarayudu the elder brother of Punnayya as Punnayya was a minor, that Punnayya died in 1894 during minority, that the properties were thereafter enjoyed by Punnayya's brothers Subbarayudu and two others, that Subbarayadu was the last surviving member of...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumaraswami Nadar and ors. Vs. Muhammad Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad76; 67Ind.Cas.500; (1922)42MLJ352
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Ramnad, dated the 10th April 1921. It appears that, in the village of Aruppukottai there is a Nadar temple, Mariamman Koil, round which the Nadars claim the right of dragging their temple car in procession once a year. There is a rival faction in the village composed of Muhammadans who apparently resent the dragging of the car round the Western and Northern sides of the temple on the ground that the land on those sides belongs to them. 2. The first proceeding in connection with the present petition occured on the 19th March 1921 when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by which he directed that the car be peacefully taken round the temple through the Western and Northern streets of the temple without infringing the rights of the Musalmans on the street to the North, and prohibited certain Musalinans from interfering with it during the festival. O...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayya Vs. Kotamma and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad370
1. This Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as purchaser from the reversionary heirs of one Mallabattudu to recover possession of the properties specified in the plaint and the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. Mallabattudu, the last male holder of the properties, died in 1889, leaving two daughters, Ramamma and Govindamma. Ramamma died in 1914 and Govindamma, who is the fifth defendant, surrendered her estate to her sons who are the sixth and seventh defendants. They sold their rights to the plaintiff in this suit. The findings are that Mallabattudu, about two years before his death, made an oral gift of the suit properties to his grandson, Punnayya, the son of his daughter Ramamma, that the properties were managed by Subbarayadu, the elder brother of Punnayya as Punnayya was a minor, that Punnayya died in 1894 during minority, that the properties were thereafter enjoyed by Punnayya's brothers, Subbarayadu and two others, that Subbarayadu was the l...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. Rajagopala Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad466; (1922)42MLJ303
Ayling, J.1. The sole question for disposal in this appeal is one of limitation. Appellant is the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 174 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi and the Appeal arises out of his Execution Petition No. 368 of 1919 filed on 8th October 1919. The decree is dated 2nd May 1916; and the only prior execution petition presented by appellant was dismissed on 7th September 1916. The present application is admittedly time barred, unless appellant can claim a new starting point for limitation under Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act by showing that he applied within three years of the prior execution petition 'to take some step in aid of execution.' There are two petitions [Exhibits E and F and a plaint in another suit, (Exhibit C) which, as appellant contends, should be regarded as such applications]. I shall deal with them in order beginning with Exhibit E.2. On 3rd January 1918 the judgment-debtor (respondent) filed a petition, Execution A...
Tag this Judgment!Yagnasami Iyer Alias Ayyavayyar Vs. K. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad63(1); 65Ind.Cas.732
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated 11th November 1919, directing an amendment of the sale certificate by including certain properties said to have been fold in auction.2. Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar on behalf of the respondent raises two preliminary objections to the hearing of the petition, (l) It is 303 days out of time, and (2) the matter in dispute was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by the order on Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 370 of 1919 and Civil Revision Petition No. 240 of 1920 [Yagnasami Ayyar v. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar 61 Ind Cas 961 .3. Mr. Venkatarama Sastri for the petitioner argues that his client was pursuing his remedy in another proceeding, that there was no delay in the prosecution of that remedy, that this being a revision petition the period of limitation is only a rule of Court and (delay?) could be excused for proper reasons and that the order on Civil Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. Rajagopala Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad79; 70Ind.Cas.324
William Ayling, J.1. The sole question for disposal in this appeal is one of limitation. Appellant is the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 174 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi and the appeal arises out of his Execution Petition, No. 368 of 1919, filed on 8th October 1919. The decree is dated 2nd May 1916 and the only prior execution petition presented by appellant was dismissed on 7th September 1916. The present application is admittedly time-barred, unless appellant can claim a new starting point for limitation under Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act by showing that he applied within 3 years of the prior execution petition 'to take some step-in-aid of execution.'2. There are two petitions (Exhibits E and F) and a plaint in another suit (Exhibit C) which as appellant contends, should be regarded as such applications. I shall deal with them in order, beginning with Exhibit E.3. On 3rd January 1918 the judgment-debtor (respondent) filed a petition, Execu...
Tag this Judgment!Rayapati Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Kalapatapc Narayana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad83(1); 66Ind.Cas.44
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge has set aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code though no application for it had been made by the judgment debtor to the Court in time. The money, no doubt, had been paid into Court in tim6 but no application was made as required by Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. There was only a lodgment schedule filed into Court along with the money as required by Rule 131 of the Civil Rules of Practice whenever any money is paid into Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that this lodgment schedule san be treated as equivalent to the application required by Rule 89. I regret I am unable to accept this view. There is no prayer in the lodgment schedule to set aside the sale under Rule 89 and I do not see how, without such a prayer, it san be treated as an application under the rule.2. It was suggested that an oral application should be presumed to have been made to the Court under the circumstances in this case...
Tag this Judgment!Kasivisvanathan Chetty Vs. A.S.P.L.S. Somasundaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad93; (1922)42MLJ422
1. This Appeal is against an order refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a money decree against the appellant, 1st defendant, and other members of his family.2. The lower court was asked to set aside the sale on several grounds. Only one argument has been attempted here, that the sale is bad for want of notice to appellant as required by Order 21, Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code. The necessary facts are that a decree, passed on 8th August 1912 by the Chief Court of Lower Burma, was transmitted to Ramnad District Court in May 1914 and thence to Ramnad Sub Court. It was returned to Ramnad District Court, the application for execution there was treated as transfer to the Lower Court., Sivaganga Sub Court, and the decree and execution petition by a possibly lax procedure, to which however no objection is taken at present were transferred accordingly, in the Lower Court the present proceedings followed. It is admitted by the respondent that there was no notice of the proceedings in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Viswanathan Chetty Vs. A.S.P.L.S. Somasundaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad875
1. This Appeal is against an order refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a, money decree against the appellant first defendant and other members of his family.2. The lower Court was asked to set aside the sale on several grounds. Only one argument has been attempted here, that the sale is bad for want of notice to appellant as required by Order XXI, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code. The necessary facts are that a decree passed on 8th August 1912 by the Chief Court of Lower Burma was transmitted to the Ramnad District Court in May 1914 and thence to the Ramnad Sub-Court. It was returned to the Ramnad District Court; the application for execution there was treated as one for transfer to the lower Court, Sivaganga Sub-Court, and the decree and execution petition, by a possibly lax procedure to which however no objection is taken at present, were transferred accordingly. In the lower Court the present proceedings followed. It is admitted by the respondent that there was no notice of th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venku Reddy and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad32; 65Ind.Cas.768
ORDEROdgers, J.1. The only point is, whether the prosecution witnesses ought to have been allowed to be cross-examined. I think the point taken for the accused must succeed The Magistrate having allowed the prosecution witnesses to be recalled as defence witnesses under Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code, must clearly have allowed them to be cross-examined by the accused. There is no finding that the application should not have been allowed as vexatious or dilatory. The cases which support accused's position are Mawla Bux Biswas v. Derasatulla Sarkar 10. W.N. 19 and Sheoprakash Singh v.Rawlins 28 C. 594. Both cases decide that prosecution witnesses summoned under these circumstances, do not change their character and may be cross-examined by the accused. The convictions must be set aside end the case remitted for re-trial according to law....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »