Chennai Court March 1921 Judgments
Mysore Kopniah Sivananjiah and ors. Vs. K. Sithay Goudar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad627; (1921)41MLJ490
Spencer, J.1. At a Court sale upon a mortgage decree the 1st respondent purchased inter alia a plot of land measuring 7 cents in extent denoted by the Survey Number H (61) situated in Manianacorai 'together with the buildings and erections thereon and the fixtures thereon and together with all the bluegum trees and other trees thereon.'2. The judgment-debtor's house stands on H. 61 and this passed to 1st respondent by the sale. In front of the house there are two plots which were not sold at the court sale. One is 56 A-3 on which the verandah and two projecting wings of the judgment debtor's house have been built, and the other is H 58-3 which serves as an approach to the house from the public road.3. When the purchaser fist respondent took delivery of the house, he was obstructed by the judgment-debtors (who are appellants in the High Court from obtaining possession of the two other plots. So he successfully took proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Oo...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Iyer Vs. A.P.T. Veerabadra Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.593
Napier, J.1. In the suit from which the second appeal lies, the question arose as to the effect of a statement made by a witness in certain criminal proceedings, whether that statement amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within Section 19 of the limitation Act; The statement is as follows: 'I executed the promissory-note, Exhibit R, (suit promissory-note). The contents of promissory-note are correct.' Exhibit R (which is Exhibit A in the present case) is a promissory-note acknowledging liability for Rs. 1,322-11-11 with a promise to pay with interest at 12 per cent per annum. On that promissory-note there were at the date that the document was shown to the witness, four endorsements of various payments, in 1912. The statement made by the witness is, admittedly, within the period of limitation which has to be applied in this case. The question is, whether this amounts to an acknowledgement.2. Both the appellant and the respondent have relied on the decision of the Privy Council i...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Subrahmanyia Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad568; 66Ind.Cas.59; (1921)41MLJ90
ORDER1. This is a petition by the 2nd respondent in this appeal under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C, to set aside an exparte decree obtained against him in the lower court in the suit now under appeal, and in support of this application reliance was placed on a decision in Sankara Bhatta v. Subraya Bhatta I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 535. That was a case in which the application was made after the appeal had been disposed of and the case is, therefore, distinguishable. That case, however, proceeds upon the ground that the filing of the appeal divested the lower court of the power to entertain that application. There was some warrant for that view in earlier decisions at the time when that judgment was given, but the matter has been abundantly considered since and we think it must now be taken as settled, at any rate in all the other High Courts, that the me/e filing of an appeal does not take away the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain such an application as this. We may also observe that th...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithinatha Ayyar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Govindaswami Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ65
ORDERJohn Wallis, C.J.1. This is an application under Order 22, Rule 9(2) to set aside an abatement. The deceased plaintiff appellant died on 31st July 1920 when the time limited for bringing on his legal representatives was six months under Article 176 of the Limitation Act of 1908. By an amending Act, which was passed early in September 1920 and came into force on the 1st January 1921, the time was reduced to ninety days. It has been contended before us, that, as the death of the plaintiff took place before the amending Act was passed, the petitioner was in time in filing his application on 17th January 1921 within six months of her husband's death. Precisely the same question arose in Aravil Kaliamma v. Sankaran Nambu-dripad 20 M.L.T. 347 as regards the reduction by the Limitation Act of 1908 of the period for bringing in legal representative from three years to six months, and it was decided that the application which was made after the coming into force of the Limitation Act of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Pujari and anr. Vs. Thukra Gurikara Alias Kanthu Lakkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ287
1. It is clear from the allegations in the plaint that this suit is not for the establishment of the PLalntiff's right to any office in a temple.2. His claim in the pLalnt is for certain temple honours to be shown to him as 1st Gurikar of a certain caste in a certain village. It is not alleged that any duties are to be performed by him. The act of worship which it is alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the pLalnt that the plaintiff and three other Gurikars do an the Occasion of the annual jatra cannot be regarded as a duty or obligation arising out of an office. The facts of this case are not distinguishable from those which were the subject of the decisions in Sriman Sadagopa v. Krishna Tatachariyar 1 M.H.C.R. 301 and Karuppa v. Kolanthayan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 91 and Sangappa Bin Baslingappa v. Gangappa Bin Naranjappa I.L.R. 2 Bom. 476 and Narayan v. Krishnaji I.L.R. 10 Bom. 233 and Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata-charulu I.L.R. 19 Mad. 62 and VathiarVenkatachariar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar 7 L.W. 614...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalasseri Kottayil Sreedharan Valia Rajah Styled Churaran of Iswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.279; (1921)41MLJ525
Napier, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to redeem a kanom. That was the original from of the suit although it is true that in his plaint he claimed to also recover the land on -the strength of title.2. The defendants pleaded that they were Anubhavam tenants to the knowledge of the plaintiff.3. In the course of the trial the plaintiff applied to, the District Munsif for leave to amend his plaint by accepting the position that the defendants were Anubhavam tenants and claiming his right to recover the property on the ground that his title as jenmi has been denied by the defendant, which denial operated as forfeiture.4. The first court had, declined to grant the amendment. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge allowed the amendment but he allowed it on very narrow grounds which are to be found at the bottom of page 28. He said By the amendment sought to be made, plaintiff only wanted to make his position clean There was no change in the nature of the suit. Even without an...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Board of Revenue) Vs. the North ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad524; (1921)41MLJ177
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from ara order passed by Kumaraswami Sastri, J. under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to make a reference to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918, and raises questions of importance as to, the jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order. The case has been very fully argued before us by the learned Advocate-General for the appellant and by Mr. Aiyangar for the respondent and we also heard Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for other persons who have applications of a similar nature pending.2. The powers conferred on a High Court by Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act are in lieu of the power to issue the writ of mandamus inherited from the Supreme Court which is taken away by Section 50, and Clause (b) of the proviso makes it clear that. the section does not authorise the making of 'any order which is otherwise expressly excluded by any law for the time being in forc...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the North Anantapur Gold Mine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad718
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an Appeal from an order passed by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to make a reference to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, and raises questions of importance as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order. The case has been very fully argued before us by the learned Advocate-General for the appellant, by Mr. Aiyngar for the respondent, and we also heard Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for other persons who have applications of a similar nature pending.2. The powers conferred on a High Court by Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act are in lieu of the power to issue the writ of mandamus inherited from the Supreme Court which is taken away by Section 50, and Clause (h) of the proviso makes it clear that the section does not authorize the making of:any order which is otherwise expressly excluded by any law for the time being in force.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›