Chennai Court April 1921 Judgments
P.M.A.R.M. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Lodd Govinda Doss Krishna Doss Varu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad599; (1921)41MLJ316
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Oldfield, J. Seshagiri Aiyar, J. dissenting dismissing, an appeal from an order of the District Judgment of Chittor refusing the application of the appellant, who claims to be a transferee of a one eighth share in a mortgage decree, to make him a party to the execution proceedings on the mortgage decree in substitution of, or jointly with, the decree-holder. The question has been raised whether any appeal lay to the High Court from the order inf question.2. In making that order the District Judge purported to act under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as orders under that rule are appealable, we are bound to entertain the appeal as held in Abdul Rahiman Saheb v. Ganapalhi Bhattu I.L.R.(1900) Mad. 517 and Lakshmanan Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty I.L.R. (1904) Mad. 127 .3. In dealing with the appeal it will be convenient to consider in the first place whether under the present Code a decr...
Tag this Judgment!Thanneru Gangayya Vs. Bommadevara Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad172(1); (1921)41MLJ305
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing a suit by a mortgagee on two mortgages on two grounds, namely, that the mortgages were not duly proved for want of attestation and that there was no consideration.2. I propose to deal with the second finding first. The defendant who is said to be so is alleged to have executed the suit documents in 1907 when she was between 60 and 70, and the second witness for the plaintiff on whom the defendants now rely says that she was an intelligent woman She admits that about that time she was constructing or reconstructing certain godowns. Both the mortgages recite that the advances under them were made to her for the purpose of erecting these godowns. She now denies that she acknowledged the execution of both these documents before the Sub Registrar, but this admission is proved, and according to the rules and practice, I have not the least doubt that the substance of the transactions was exp...
Tag this Judgment!Nallasiva Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Ravan Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad383; 70Ind.Cas.389
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The first plaintiff are the appelents purchaser from the second plaintiff of the second plaintiff's alleged rights, in the plaint property. The second plaintiff is the son of one Khairath Khan who was the owner of the plaint lands. This suit is brought for the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage (Exhibit A) of these lands made by Khairath Khan in the year 1858. The plaintiff's case is. that the defendants Nos. 15 to 20 who represent a matam have succeeded one Velayudam Pillar in the trusteeship of that matam and that that Velayudam Pillai was a sub-mortgagee two or three degrees removed from the original mortgagee under Exhibit A. The trustees contention was that the former trustee, Velayudam Pillai, was the owner of the lands in 1874 and was not a sub-mortgagee there for and that the matam has been in possession as owner since 1874.2. Both the lower Courts found that the plaintiff's case that Velayudam Pillai was the sub-mort...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidyanathaswamy Iyer Vs. Natesa Malavarayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad452; (1921)41MLJ310
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought for redemption of a mortgage effected under a document, the counterpart of which is alleged to be Ex. H, which is dated in 1824.2. The main question for consideration therefore is whether Ex. H is genuine. The Court of First Instance refused to presume under Section 90 of the Evidence Act that it was a genuine document and called for proof of the same and as no reliable proof was forthcoming that Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the Court of First Instance on substantially the same grounds. The point therefore for decision is whether the Lower Court ought to have used the discretion vested in them by Section 90 of the Evidence Act in favour of the plaintiffs.4. It must be admitted that the learned District Judge has made certain erroneous observations in his judgment. If a Court is prepared to presume the genuineness of a document under Section 90 of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vemureddi Babureddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad424; (1921)41MLJ158
ORDER1. These are applications put in by Mr. F.T. Ward, a first Grade Pleader of Nellore and by his client the 1st accused in a murder case, under Section 107 of the Government of India Act and Section 435 Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside an order of the 2nd class Magistrate of Kovur debarring Mr. Ward from appearing as Counsel for the 1st accused at the preliminary inquiry on the ground that his name appears in, a supplemental list of witnesses put in by the prosecution as 42nd witness for the prosecution. Such an order is wholly unprecedented and is not supported by any of the cases referred to in the order. The Magistrate states that as a prosecution witness Mr. Ward cannot sit in Court on the accused's behalf until he is called in for examination in due order by the prosecution. The rule as to the exclusion of witnesses from Court until they have been examined is not without exceptions. It does not extend to the parties themselves in civil cases so long as they conduct themsel...
Tag this Judgment!Pothi Kandiyil Vattoli Kalandar and anr. Vs. Keloth Vattoli Puthooram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ437
1. The question on which the decision of these appeals turns is whether the parties in respect of the suit pro-perties are governed by their own Muhammadan law or have adopted the Marumakathayam lw. The question arises in this way. The family consisted of two brothers and two sisters. One of the sisters had a daughter Bjyathumma who married the son of one of the brothers, Vattoli Tharuvaryi. The properties in dispute are the properties of Biyathumma, which descended to her two sons, Tharuvaryi Kutti and the present plaintiff. The 4th and 5th defendants (the present appellants) are the sons of Tharuvaryi Kutti. If the devolution of the suit properties is subject to the Muhammadan law, they are entitled to succeed. The lower Courts have ffeund that, because they came to them from their mother, they are subject to Marum-makathayam law.2. The first question is whether the matter is res judicata in consequence of a decision of this Court in S.A. No. 1498 of 1911. The present plaintiff in th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vemureddi Babu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad916
ORDER1. These are applications put in by Mr. F.T. Ward, a first-grade pleader of Nellore, and by his client the first accused in a murder case, under Section 107 of the Government of India Act and Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside an order of the Second-class Magistrate of Kovur debarring Mr. Ward from appearing as counsel for the first accused at the preliminary inquiry on the ground that his name appears in a supplemental list of witnesses put in by the prosecution as forty-second witness for the prosecution. Such an order is wholly unprecedented and is not supported by any of the cases referred to in the order. The Magistrate states that as a prosecution witness Mr. Ward cannot sit in Court on the accused's behalf until he is called in for examination in due order by the prosecution. The rule as to the exclusion of witnesses from Court until they have been examined is not without exceptions. It does not extend to the parties themselves in civil cases, so long as the...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkil Maruthur Sankara Menon and ors. Vs. Mukkil Maruthur Gopala Meno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.805
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 14 are the appellants before as. The 5th defendant died after the suit. Twenty more defendants were impleaded in the suit but they have not preferred any appeal. The appellants are thirteen of the members of a Tarwad which had four Tavazhies, One Eachara Menon was the Karnavan of the whole Tarwad till his death in January 1908, The plaintiff succeeded by Marummakkahayam law to the Karnavastanam at Eachara Menon's death. A Karar had been executed during Eachara Menon's lifetime on the 2nd September 1916 to which the said prior Karnavan and almost all the adult members of the Tarwad were parties. Only three persons was not parties to it, that is, those who are mentioned as Nos. 7, 16 and 20 in that Karar No. 7, afterwards confirmed the Karar by a separate deed and No. 20 in the Karar (who is the 25th defendant in the present suit) had given up the world before the date of the Karar and might be ignored. The appellant's contention i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›