Chennai Court September 1921 Judgments
Malladi Venkatramayya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad1(1); (1922)42MLJ148
1. The agent when acting under Clauses 2 and 3 of Rule III of the Godavery Agency rules acted as a Court and no suit lies against a court for what it does as such court. Ramachandra Rao v. Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 808 was a decision which dealt with a suit for a declaration that the act of a Sub Collector who in excess of his powers, debarred a person from being appointed under Section 24 of Act 1 of 1889 (The Madras Village Courts Act) to appear for a party in a village Munsif's Court, was void. There the Sub Collector had no powers either as a Court or otherwise to issue such orders and consequently a suit for a declaration lay under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The decision does not apply to the facts of this case.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Malladi Vencataramayya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.345
1. The Agent when acting under Clause 2 and 3 of Rule 10 of Godavari Agency Rules acted as a Court and no suit lies against a Court for what it does as such Court.2. Ramachandra Rao v. Secretary of to State for India 31 Ind. Cas. 310 was a decision which dealt with a suit for a declaration that the act of a Deputy Collector, who, in excess of his powers, debarred a person from being appointed under Section 24 of Act I of 1880 (The Madras Village Courts Act) to appear for a party in a Village Munsifs Court was void. There the Deputy Collector had no powers, either as a Court or otherwise, to issue such orders, and, consequently a suit for a declaration lay under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The decision does not apply to the facts of this case.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed With costs....
Tag this Judgment!P. Baba Sah and ors. Trustees and Dharmakarthas of Sri Balasubramani S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.180
Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. The fasts of the case are so succinctly stated in the first paragraph of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge that I cannot do better than quote therefrom:The plaintiffs are the trustees of a Hindu temple and the defendants are the worshippers at a neighbouring Muhammadan mosque. Between the two buildings there were formerly a lane and some other buildings. The latter have been acquired by the Temple trustees who desire to adopt and use these buildings for religious purposes The worshippers at the Mosque, who, by the plaintiffs' acquisition of the intervening buildings, have been brought into proximity to the Temple, complained to the Police of the acts of the plaintiffs, in connection with the new buildings enquired by them. The Police took action under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. Orders were passed by the Magistrate and notifications were made by the Local Government under sub-Section 5. These orders and notifications are set out in paragraph 22 of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kochunni Elaya Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad215; (1921)41MLJ441
ORDERSpencer, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to cause the person of Kochunni Elaya Nair to be brought up before the High Court for the purpose of determining the legality of his detention. The accompanying affidavit states that Kochunni Elaya Nair the second stanee of the Mannarghat Nair family was arrested on September 3rd and imprisoned in the Palghat Sub-Jail. It is alleged that he had at the moment of arrest just arrived at his own residence situated within the limits of the Palghat Municipality and that after some question being put to him as to the Moplah outbreak at Mannarghat the Assistant Superintendent of Police directed the Inspector to take him into the Sub-jail, that no warrant of arrest was shown to him and that he was not told anything about 'the offence with which he was charged. He was accordingly taken to the Sub-Jail, and on the 6th September an application for bail was put in before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Palghat and w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tangedupalle Pedda Obigadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ37
Spencer, J.1. In the Sessions Court five men of Yarla Caste were tried for the murder of Kuppuswamy Iyengar, late Police Sub-Inspector of Chekrayapet, but the 2nd accused alone was found guilty and convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. There is before us an appeal preferred by Government against the acquittal of accused 1, 3, and 4, and the sentence of death passed on the 2nd accused has come up for confirmation under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of the 5th accused is not before us.2. It was proved by the deceased police officer's wife, prosecution witness No. 20, that she last saw her husband at 3 p. m. on February 20th, 1920, when he left his house at Kumara kalva for the Police Station at Chekrayapet saying he would return at night. It was proved by prosecution witnesses 12 and 13, constables of that station, that he worked in the station that day till 6 P. M. when he left for home. He was last seen alive by two Mahomedans, prosecution witnesses 17 ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mahadeva Ayyar Vs. the South Indian Railway Co. Through Its Agent a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad362; (1922)ILR65Mad135
William Ayling, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of Act IX of 1837 in which we are asked to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin dismissing Small Cause Suit No. 1 of 1919 on his file. The whole case has been referred, first by a single Judge to a Divisional Bench, and then by that Bench to a Full Bench.2. This suit was one for damages against the South Indian Railway Company for short delivery of goods: and it was dismissed for failure to notify plaintiff's claim within six months as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act read with Section 140. The former section says:A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway or to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railway Administration within six mo...
Tag this Judgment!Unde Rajaha Raje Rajah Velugoti Sree Govinda Krishna Yachendrulavaru R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ530
Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to us is this.Whether the word tenant in Section 20 Clause 3 of Madras Act IV of 1897 includes the grantees of a rent free inam in a ZamindariClause (3) referred to runs thus:The amount so apportioned shall be recoverable by the proprietor from the tenants concerned in the same manner as if it were an arrear of rent due by a tenant to his landlord.2. It will be seen that the clause contains the words 'tenants' and 'tenant.' The reference speaks of 'tenant': but I feel no doubt that the word of which our interpretation is desired is the word 'tenants' preceding the word 'concerned.'3. On general principles I should much like to adopt Spencer, J.'s interpretation. There is no reason why the holder of a rent free Inam should not contribute equally with his neighbour, a ryot paying rent, to the cost of the survey, which is for the benefit of both. And Section 10 Which governs the case of Government land, and speaks of the registered holder would app...
Tag this Judgment!Unde Rajaha Raje Rajah Velugoti Sree Govindakrishna Yachendrulavaru Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad1
William Ayling, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the word 'tenant' in Section 20, Clause 3 of Madras Act IV of 1897, includes the grantees of a rent-free inam in a zamindari.2. Clause (3) referred to runs thus:The amount so apportioned shall be recoverable by the proprietor from the tenants concerned in the same manner as if it were an arrear of rent due by a tenant to his landlord.3. It will be seen that the clause contains the word 'tenants' and 'tenant.' The reference speaks of 'tenant'; but I feel no doubt that the word of which our interpretation is desired is the word 'tenants' preceding the word 'concerned.'4. On general principles I should much like to adopt Spencer, J.'s interpretation. There is no reason why the holder of a rent-free inam should not contribute equally with his neighbour, a ryot paying rent, to the cost of the survey, which is for the benefit of both. And Section 10, which governs the case of Government land and speaks of the regi...
Tag this Judgment!Sekharipuram Gramom Krishna Aiyar Vs. Namiassan Veetil Mayankutti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad30; 70Ind.Cas.80
Krishnan, J.1. The lower Court has dismissed the decree-holder's execution-petition as barred by limitation. But it is pointed out by his learned Vakil that his application is within three years from the date of his written application to the Court to receive the Railway fare and the cost of meals for sending the judgment-debtor to the Civil Jail. Sending a debtor to Jail is certainly taking a step-in-aid of execution, as it is intended to put pressure on the debtor to pay. Now, an application to do such a thing seems to me to be an application falling within Article 182 of the Limitation Act and gives a fresh starting point for limitation. In a somewhat similar case a 'batta' application to pay money into Court to get a sale proclamation issued was considered by the High Court to be an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. See Vijiaraghavalu Naidu v. Srinivasalu Naidu 28 M. 399.2. It is argued for the respondent that there no necessity to make an application to commit an arr...
Tag this Judgment!Gontu Appireddi Vs. Gontu Chinna Appireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad246; 66Ind.Cas.271; (1921)41MLJ606
1. In this case two creditors of one Chanda-varam Ramayya and his three undivided sons (Respondents 1 to 4) petitioned (i) that they might be declared insolvents (ii) that certain alienations made by Respondents 1 to 4 in favour of the 5th.Respondent might be declared invalid and cancelled. The alienations took place about a month before the presentation of the petition which is dated 20th December 1918. The learned District Judge heard the petition of 19th March 1920 and in the same order not only adjudicated Respondents 1 to 4 insolvents but declared the sale deed which witnessed the alienations cancelled. The act of insolvency alleged and proved against the respondents 1 to 4 was these alienations under Section 6(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) i.e. they were held to be transfers with intent to defraud or delay creditors. The petition was presented under Section 7 and the debtors were adjudicated under Section 27(i) which runs thus - If the Court does not dismiss the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »