Chennai Court July 1921 Judgments
Pattani Valappil Payyanatan Krishna and ors. Vs. Manalil Inkirias Govi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ381
Spencer, J.1. As it has been found that there was necessity for the sale to the extent of a substantial amount (viz) Rs. 1001, out of Rs. 1400, the proper course for the Courts to follow was in my opinion to uphold the sale instead of directing it to be set aside on condition of the plaintiffs paying the amount for which necessity was proved.2. This is the effect of the decisions in Thalagara Ramanna v. Kalagare Gangayya (1913) 27 M.L.J. 132 Kannan Chetty v. Ainirithammal (1914) 1 L.W. 877 and Asa Varada Seshamma v. Bava Venkatakrishnarayanim (1916) 33 I.C. 833 .3. For the respondents Mr, K.P.M. Menon relied on decisions in Kunhamma Umtna v. Ibrahim Haji (1913) 12 M.L.T. 264 and Padammah v. Themana Amma I.L.R(1897). Mad.232 and Second Appeal No. 782 of 1919 (un-reported) but those were casps of mortgages and in such cases different considerations arise from those which arise in cases of sales.4. It was next contended for the respondents that the appell-lant should be made to pay over a...
Tag this Judgment!Tarigopala Nagiah Vs. Kommineni Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad690; (1921)41MLJ385
1. We do not consider that the posting of a notice upon the notice board of the Court announcing the result of the appeal was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order XX Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the pronouncement of judgments in open court.2. We agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Bai Dahi v. Hargovan Das I.L.R(1906) 30 Bom. 155 that a practice of omitting to pronounce judgment in open court is both inconvenient to the parties and in direct opposition to an express provision of the law.3. When the vakils addressed the District Judge on Monday the 15th March 1920 as to the appeal, the appeal was still pending for want of a delivered judgment. The District Judge had thus jurisdiction at. that, time to receive a etition of compromise and to pass the necessary orders upon it. His order declining jurisdiction must now be set aside; and he is directed to take the petition on file and dispose of it according to law.4. Costs of this Civil Mis...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthiravattath Kongasseri Mokshath Thottamma Alias Amma Neithiyar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad219; (1922)ILR65Mad79
1. The defendant had a mortgage in 1889 of certain properties belonging to the Cochin Government in British territory. Proposals for its renewal were made in the beginning of 1911. As the District Munsif points out in paragraph 14, 'the purapad was collected, the demise was renewed, renewal fee was paid and accepted, kanom deed was written and executed on stamp paper supplied, by the tenant, and the kychit was prepared on a similar stamp gaper.' Bat there was no registered instrument. There can be little doubt that the first defendant objected to the new terms, though apparently the circar did not consider the door was closed for reconsideration. But eventually, the circar gave a melcharth to the plaintiff in 1913. He sues to redeem the old kanom of 1889.2. The District Munsif held that the contract was complete and that the only course open to the circar was to have sued for specific performance to compel the first defendant to accept the mortgage with the new terms. The Subordinate J...
Tag this Judgment!Tarigopula Nagiah Vs. Komineni Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.82
1. We do not consider that the posting of a notice upon the notice board of the Court announcing the result of the appeal was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, as to the pronouncements of judgments in open Court.2. We agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Bai Dahi v. Hargovan das 8 Bom. L.R. 229 that the practice of omitting to pronounce judgment in open Court is both inconvenient to the parties and in direct opposition to an express provision of the law.3. When the Vakils addressed the District Judge on Monday, the 15th Marsh 1920, as to the appeal, the appeal was still pending for want of a delivered judgment. The District Judge had thus jurisdiction at that time to receive a petition of compromise and to pass the necessary orders upon it. His order declining jurisdiction must now be set aside; and he is directed to take the petition on file and dispose of it awarding to law.4. Costs of this civil miscellaneous ap...
Tag this Judgment!Mahajanam Venkatrayar Vs. Kodi Venkatrayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad223; 66Ind.Cas.72; (1921)41MLJ398
ORDER1. In this case a compensation order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attacked as illegal.2. It is argued that the facts appearing in evidence constitute an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable only by a Sessions Court, and that, in consequence the Magistrate'had no jurisdiction to act under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cur opinion the offence disclosed was one under Section 467 but the Magistrate undoubtedly regarded it as one under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (which he had jurisdiction to try) and specifically refers to the latter section in his order. Does the former fact affect the legality of his order of compensation? We think not. The Magistrate undoubtedly proceeded under Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Chapter 18; and King Emperor v. Ayyan and Vellayyappa Udayan I.L.R(1900) . Mad. 675 is clear authority for holding that if the case ha'd ended in a conviction, tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›