Chennai Court December 1921 Judgments
R.M.A.R.A.R.M. Arunachala Chettiar, Br Agent Subramaniam Chettiar, Att ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad66; 65Ind.Cas.830
Ramesam, J.1. The petition was filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. This is a mistake. I have allowed it to be amended into a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. Under Order XXI, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code a payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded shall not be recognised by any Court executing the decree. It is admitted in this case that the satisfaction of the decree in April 1917, as now pleaded by the respondent, was neither certified to, nor recorded by, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram which passed the decree. But it is said that both the original decree-holder and the judgment-debtor intimated to the District Munsif of Tiruvalur in reply to the notice issued by him by way of attaching the Mayavaram decree, that the decree was satisfied. Obviously, this does not satisfy the requirements of Order XXI, Rule 2 and ought not to have been considered by the Subordinate Judge. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswamy Naidu Vs. Uchappa Goundan (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad413; 70Ind.Cas.579
Spencer, J.1. The principal points argued in this second appeal are (1) that the suit was not maintainable so tar as it was a suit for a scheme of management of the trust properties after a sceme had been once settled in a (sic) suit which was carried to the High Court in appeal, (2) that in any case the Sub-Court had no jurisdiction to (sic) or alter in any way the scheme which had been embodied in a decree of the District Court and lastly (3) that if any change in the existing scheme was called for, the proper manner for (sic) it would be to move the District Court by petition and not to file a suit in the Subordinate Court. The appellant does not wish to press any objection to any particular details of the scheme bat only to the maintainability of the suit.2. When a scheme drawn up by a Court contains a provision permitting parties or persons interested in the religious instruction to apply to the Court for directions and for modifications to be made in the scheme already existing, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kasiviswanathan Chetty Vs. A.S.P.L.S. Somasundaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.611
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 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 for transfer to the lower Court, Sivagunga 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 proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad321; 68Ind.Cas.167
Odgers, J.1. C. Rule Ps. Non. 859 and 850 of 1921.2. These civil revision petitions relate to two orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated, respectively, 12th November 1921 and 29th November 1921 whith run as follows:It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 9 being preliminary Issues should be tried first. The case was being posted along with Original Suit No. 8 of 1917 on the belief that the parties in this suit wilt agree to the evidence recorded in Original Snit No. 8 of 1917 being treated as evidence in this suit also. But the learned Vakil for the plaintiff in this snit urges that on the pleadings without any farther evidence being let in he is prepared to substantiate his case as against the defendant on Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 9 and I cannot say that he had no right so to contend.The suit is posted for argument on Issues Nor. 3, 4 and 9 to 1st December.Note:---The plaintiffs Vakil states that he does not give up thereby the other issues an...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidindi Seetaramaraju Vs. Vegesana Subbaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad12; (1922)42MLJ262
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that his vendor the 1st defendant was (he nearest reversioner of the late Venkataraju and that the alienations of the immovable properties mentioned in the plaint by Venkayya, the wife of Venkataraju to the family of defendants 2 to 5 and that of defendants 6 to 11 are invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or the 1st defendant, for possession and mesne profits which were assessed at Rs. 200 for the year 1913 and for subsequent mesne profits. Various pleas were raised by the defendants, the chief of which were that the 1st defendant was not the nearest reversioner of the late Venkataraju, that the sale-deed of the 8th;of February 1913 in favour of the plaintiff-was not bona fide and valid, that the alienations by the widow were for necessity and binding on the reversioners and that the suit was barred by limitation and res-judicata. The District Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff but on appeal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Sesha Prabhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.429; (1922)42MLJ149
ORDEROldfield, J.1. We are asked to revise petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence of storing and selling grain wholesale within the Cannanore Municipal limits without a license from the Municipal Chairman punishable under Sections 249, and 338(b) of the Madras District Municipalities Act V of 1920.2. The first objection taken to the conviction is that there is no evidence of the sale of grain wholesale or of the storage for wholsale trade, contemplated by Sch, V. (c) for which a license can be required under Section 249. In the absence of a definition of 'Wholesale' in the Act, the meaning of that expression in common parlance must be decisive and, whether the definition in the Century or Webster's Dictionaries as 'sale in large quantities' or the secondary definition in the latter as 'Selling to retailers or jobbers' is accepted, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's finding of fact is sufficient, that petitioner' has six shops, in which he stores thousands of bags of grain se...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukanakku Pillai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad110; 65Ind.Cas.862
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of an offence under Section 147 of the Penal Code, i.e., of rioting. It is unnecessary to go into the evidence for the prosecution which was believed by the Second Class Magistrate who originally tried them. The common object alleged was of getting P.W. No. 1, Udayar Pusari, to execute a certain re-conveyance of lands. On appeal to the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he agreed with the lower Court as to the credibility of the prosecution evidence bat altered the convictions into convictions under Section 352, i.e., assault, as against accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted of abetment of assault under Sections 352 and 114, Indian Penal Code.2. With regard to accused Nos. 2 and 3 their case can be dealt with at once. The conviction of the abetment of assault on a charge under petition 147, Indian Penal Code, clearly cannot stand, and if authority is wan...
Tag this Judgment!Subbe Goundan and anr. Vs. Krishnamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad112; (1922)42MLJ372
1. Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the properties claimed in the plaint on the ground that the sale of the properties by then- father to the defendants is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and for the recovery of past and future mesne profits. The case for the plaintiffs was that the land specified in the plaint and other properties belonged to their grandfather that on a family partition the plaint properties fell to the share of then- father, that he without any necessity sold the plaint properties to the defendants or a low price 'that the sale was not binding on them and that they are 17 Hindu law entitled to recover possession of the Properties from he purchasers. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof that he was born at the date of the sale and contended that the sale by the plaintiff's father was to discharge antecedent debts and for other family purposes, that the consideration adequa...
Tag this Judgment!A. Veda Murthi Mudaliar Vs. Jwalapuram Ragavacharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad100(1); (1922)42MLJ475
1. We are unable to accept the finding of the District Judge that the 1st plaintiff is the only person interested in the contract. The agreement to sell, Ex. A, expressly states that the contract is in favour of the 1st plaintiff and others. The case for the 1st. plaintiff is that the 'others' referred to in the document, are the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The case for the contesting defendant is that by 'others' were intended the other plaintiffs, the 6th defendant and 20 other villagers. The only evidence is that of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff says that the 'others' means 2 and 3 plaintiffs, and the 1st defendant in his evidence says that 'others' means 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, 6th defendant and 20 others. The 6th defendant in his written statement also says so. Haying regard to the terms of the document, the written statement, and the evidence in this case, we find it difficult to see how the court can find that the 1st plaintiff was solely interested in the contr...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Goundan and anr. Vs. Krishnamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad449
1. Defendants are the appellants. This Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the properties claimed in the plaint on the ground that the sale of the properties by their father to the defendants is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, and for the recovery of past and future mesne profits. The case for the plaintiffs was that the land specified in the plaint and other properties belonged to their grandfather, that on a family partition the plaint properties fell to the share of their father, that he without any necessity sold the plaint properties to the defendants for a low price, that the sale was not binding on them and that they are under Hindu law entitled to recover possession of the properties from the purchasers. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof that he was born at the date of the sale and contended that the sale by the plaintiff's father was to discharge antecedent debts and for other family purposes, that the consideration...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »