Chennai Court February 1921 Judgments
Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. S.A. Balakrishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad666; (1921)41MLJ60
Spencer, J.1. The petitioner is at the same time the plaintiff in O. S. No. 8 of 1917 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court of Mayavaram and the defendant in O. S. No. 56 of 1920 on the file of the same Court, and the respondents are two vakils practising in that court. The question we have to decide is whether the respondents can, consistently with Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice, appear against the petitioner in the latter suit having already acted for him in the earlier suit. We are informed that both suits are still undisposed of.2. The rule declares that a pleader who has advised a party in connection with the institution of a suit, or has drawn pleadings in connection with any such matter, or has acted for him shall not appear in such suit or in any appeal or application for revision arising therefrom, or in any matter connected therewith for any person whose interest is opposed to that of his former client. It is only where a pleader obtains the consent of the for...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai (Minor) by Mother and Guardian Gomathi Ammal Vs. N.P.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad477; (1921)41MLJ160
Spencer, J.1. I agree with the learned Subordinate judge that the provisions of Order 34, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the facts of this case as the money decree obtained by the respondent was not strictly in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage. It appears that the bond was not valid as a mortgage on account of the minor's guardian having failed to obtain the leave of the Court under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act to charge the minor's immoveable property.2. The decree declared that the debt might be recovered from the property that was made subject to the mortgage and from the 1st defendants' other properties.3. Assuming that these words were intended to create a charge the case of Sowbagia Ammal v. Manicka Mudaliar : (1917)33MLJ601 cited in the Lower Court's order is an authority for holding that Order 34, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code will not operate as a bar to the sale of such property. Hem Ban v. Bihari Gir I.L.R. (1905) All....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gadadhara Das Bavaji Mahant of Balaji Mutt Vs. Suryanarayana Patna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ97
Ayling, J.1. The suit of which this appeal arises was brought by a minor Inamdar to declare that defendants 1 and 2, tenants under him, have no occupancy right in the Inam lands and to set aside an attachment of the said lands effected by 3rd defendant on the ground that they possessed such a right.2. The sole question is whether the suit lands form part of an 'estate' and whether plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 occupy the position of land-holder' and 'ryot' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If they do, Section 6 of the Act will operate to confer occupancy right on the defendants.3. The suit lands were originally ryoti lands situated within the permanently settled Zamindari of Surangi, which is an estate within the meaning of the Act: they were granted by the Zamindar after permanent settlement on a quit-rent payable to himself of Rs. 15 per annum. The grant is found, as a fact to include both varams.4. The learned Chief Justice has held that in consequence of the Ina...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Paramandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad423; (1921)40MLJ464
1. Accused in this case was convicted of the murder of a boy of 8 years of age for the sake of the latter's jewels and sentenced to transporation for life. There is evidence to show that the boy left his village shortly before sunset on Thursday, April 22nd in the company of accused; that his body was found two days later in a well near the village with a stone tied to it and all the jewels missing : that death was the result of strangulation: and that accused on the day after the disappearance sold articles similar to or identical with the missing jewels in a village 3 or 4 miles away. It is also in evidence that when questioned by the boy's mother, accused denied that he had taken the boy-a denial which is certainly false if the evidence of prosecution witnesses 2 to 5 is true.2. We can find no ground for discrediting any of this evidence. The medical and other evidence leaves no doubt that the child was murdered by some one for the sake of his jewels: and although the evidence of pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Paramandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad443
1. Accused in this case was convicted of the murder of a boy of 8 years of age for the sake of the latter's jewels and sentenced to transportation for life. There is evidence to show that the boy left his village shortly before sunset on Thursday, April 22nd, in the company of accused; that his body was found two days later in a well near the village with a stone tied to it and all the jewels missing; that death was the result of strangulation; and that accused on the day after the disappearance sold articles similar to or identical with the missing jewels in a village 3 or 4 miles away. It is also in evidence that when questioned by the boy's mother accused denied that he had taken the boy--denial which is certainly false if the evidence of prosecution witnesses 2 to 5 is true.2. We can find no ground for discrediting any of this evidence. The medical and other evidence leaves no doubt that the child was murdered by some one for the sake of his jewels; and although the evidence of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gadadhara Das Bavaji, Mahant of Balaji Mutt Vs. Suryanarayana Patn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad547; (1921)ILR44Mad677
Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a minor inamdar to declare that defendants 1 and 2, tenants under him, have no occupancy right in the inam lands and to set aside an attachment of the said lands effected by third defendant on the ground that they possessed such a right.2. The sole question is whether the suit lands form part of an estate,' and whether plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 occupy the position of 'landholder' and 'ryot' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If they do, Section 6 of the Act will operate to confer occupancy right on the defendants.3. The suit lands were originally ryoti lands situated within the permanently-settled zamindari of Surangi, which is an estate within the meaning of the Act: they were granted by the zamindar after permanent settlement on a quit-rent payable to himself of Rs. 15 per annum. The grant is found as a fact to include both varams.4. The learned Chief Justice has held that in consequence of th...
Tag this Judgment!Paramandi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.524
1. Accused in this case was convicted of murder of a boy of 8 years of age for the sake of the latter's jewels and sentenced to transportation for life. There is evidente to show that the boy left his village shortly before sunset on Thursday, April 22nd, in the company of accused; that his body was found two days later in a well near the village with a stone tied to it and all the jewels missing; the death was the result of strangulation and that accused on the day after the disappearance hold articles similar to or identical with the missing jewels in a village 3 or 4 miles away. It is also in evidence that, when questioned by the boy's mother, accused denied that he had taken the boy, a denial which is certainly false if the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 to 5 is true.2. We can find no ground for discrediting any of this evidence. The medical and other evidence leaves no doubt that the child was murdered by some one for the sake of his jewels; and although the evidence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kancherla Kanakayya Vs. Mulpuru Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad587; (1921)41MLJ75
1. The question in this appeal is whether the next friend of a minor can after obtaining a decree in the minor's favour transfer that decree to a third party without the leave of the Court.2. A transfer involves an agreement between the transferor and the transferee, and under Order 32, Rule 7 every agreement by a next friend on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts requires the leave, of the court.3. There is no reason for reading the word 'suit' in this rule as meaning only a suit in which a decree has not been passed.4. We do not find anything in the context to suggest this, and we must dissent from the opinion of Abdur Rahim and Odgers, JJ. in Govindarajulu Naidoo v. Ranga Rao (1920) 40 M.L.J. 124 on this point and follow that of Sadasiva Ayyar and Moore, JJ., in Shaik Davud Rowthcr v. Paramasami Pillai (1915) 31 M.L.J. 207 which adopts a contrary view and does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided Govindarajulu Naidoo...
Tag this Judgment!Doorvas Seshadri Aiyar and ors. Vs. Govindaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad315; (1921)40MLJ556
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In A.A.A.O. No. 205 of 1919. This civil miscellaneous Second Appeal has arisen out of an execution proceeding, the decree-holder being the Ist appellant. He obtained an executable decree in the Madura District Munsif's Court on 23rd February 1909 for sale of certain lands. On the 1st January 1912, a new Court called the District Munsif's Court of Melur was established which obtained jurisdiction over those lands. A valid application for execution was made to the proper Court on the 7th February 1912. On the 3rd April 1912 an oral application was made to the Madura Munsif's Court for extension of time to take a step in execution. This oral application of 3rd April 1912 to the Madura Munsif's Court was not made to the proper Court (or to a proper Court) according to the current of decisions of this High Court which obtained till 1919 when the Full Bench Decision in Seeni Nadan v. Muthusamy Pillai 37 M.L.J. 284 was pronounced. Following the prevailing view, the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Bhandary and ors. Vs. Janardhana Bhandary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad688; (1921)41MLJ370
1. In this case the defendant's grandfather took an assignment of a mortgage from a creditor of the family to which the plaintiffs' and defendants' ancestors belonged. He simultaneously took a sale-deed of the one-third interest of one of his two brothers in the family house for Ks. 188 of which Rs. 123-8-0 represented that brother's share of the debt and thus became the full owner of that brother's share as well as his own share over which the mortgage became extinguished by merger.2. He did not take any proceedings to recover the amount secured by the mortgage or a proportionate part thereof from the plaintiffs' grandfather's share and his right to do so was at the date of this suit barred by limitation.3. In a suit by plaintiff for partition the defendant claims to set off the amount by which the plaintiff's estate has been benefited through the defendants' grandfather's omission to bring it to sale in pursuance of his rights as assignee mortgagee.4. The Lower Courts have called upo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »