Chennai Court January 1922 Judgments
Alamuri Sitaramaswami, Minor by Next Friend Nuka Subbaraju Appointed N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad214; (1922)42MLJ559
ORDER1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to recover on a pro-note which is the third renewal of the pro-note originally executed by a deceased testator, those renewals having been given by two cut of three executors appointed by his will.2. The first objection taken to the plaintiff's case is that two out of the three executors were not competent to act alone. That is negatived by Section 92, Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881, unless the defendants respondents can show that the will contains in the words of the section 'a direction to the contrary'. We have read the will, but cannot find any such direction in it, either express or implied.3. It is then said that Section 92 deals only with several executors and that the word 'several' there means ''possessing powers to act severally.' We have been shown no authority whatever for this contention, which is inconsistent with the use of the word 'several' in ordinary parlance.-.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Alamuri Sitaramaswami Vs. Sreemath Prativadi Bhayankar Nam Annam Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.104
ORDER1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to recover on a pro-note, which is the third renewal of the pro-note originally executed by a deceased testator, those renewals having been given by two out of three executors appointed by his Will.2. The first objection taken to the plaintiff's case is that two out of the three executors were not competent to act alone. That is negatived by Section 92, Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881, unless the defendants-respondents can show that the Will contains in the words of the section, 'a direction to the contrary.' We have read the Will, but cannot find any such direction in it, either express or implied.3. It is then said that Section 92 deals only with several executors and that the word several' there means 'possessing powers to act severally.' We have been shown no authority whatever for this contention, which is inconsistent with the ordinary use of the word 'several' in ordinary parlance...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Sri Sri Kandamani Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.330; (1922)42MLJ337
ORDER1. The 3rd accused is a gosha lady and belonging to a respectable zamindar family of Ghumsur. I am of opinion that the Sessions Judge has power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit her to appear by pleader during the Session trial Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to do so and Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which refers to the mode of recording evidence in trials including sessions trials, states that evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused except where personal attendance is dispensed with in which case it shall be taken in the presence of his pleader. 1 do not think that there is anything in the Code to prevent the Sessions Judge from doing what a Magistrate is empowered to do as regards attendance by the accused and Section 353 impliedly gives the power as chap. 23 which relates to trials before High Courts and Courts of Session, is included in Section 353. In Emperor v. C.W. King : (1...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ayyakkutti Alias Venkatachalam Pattar Vs. P.S. Krishna Paiter and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.942
Wallis, C.J.1. Speaking for myself, I do not as at present advised, differ from the judgment prepared by Sadasiva Jyer, J., bat in view of the importance of this question, the conflict between Achntha Menon v. Sankaran Nair 12 Ind. Cas. 1007 and Zimorin Rao Avergal of Calicut v. Untkat Karnavat (sic) Nair 65 Ind. Cas 380and the fact that the members of the Bench are not in agreement on all points, I think that it will be better before disposing finally of the reference to call for a finding from the Subordinate Court as to whether in 1859 and 1867, the dates mentioned in the revised judgment of the Subordinate Judge, lands granted on the tenures known as Santhathi Brahmaswom and Adimayavana were inalterable as between the grantor and the grantee; and, if so, whether on alienation by the grantee, the grantor was entitled to resume the lands and re-enter. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding will be submitted by the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam within 6 months, and 10 days will be...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thirumal Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad133; 76Ind.Cas.966
1. There is no finding that any branch of peace occurred. following Muthiah Chetli v. Emperor 29 M. 190 : 3 Cr. L.J. 461 which has not been overruled so far as this part of the case is concerned by the case of In re Soldi Gounden 21 Ind. Cas. 174 : 37 M. 153 : 14 M.L.T. 235 : (1913) M.W.N. 769 : 25 M.L.J. 403 : 14 Cri. L.J. 574. I am of opinion that the Appellate Court was wrong in directing the accused to enter into a bond under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order under Section 106 is set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Nagahhushanam (Dead) and ors. Vs. Siram Ramachandra Rao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad241; (1922)42MLJ449
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals relate to the validity of the transfer of certain shares in limited companies governed by the Indian Companies Act.2. One Venkatasubba Rao owned shares in Sri Krishna Cotton Press Co., Ltd., Guntur, Sri Krishna Jute and Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., Ellore, Bezwada Tripurasundari Cotton Press Co., Ltd., Bezwada and Sri Krishna Mill Co., at Masulipatam. He was indebted to Thadipalli Venkataramayya and in consideration of the money due to him he executed a deed of transfer Ex. L. dated the 20th April 1912 whereby he transferred the shares mentioned in that document for a sum of Rs. 3000. The deed is in the usual form and is signed by Venkatasubba Rao only. Notice was given of this assignment to the various companies whose shares were transferred but the transferee was not registered as a share-holder owing to objection being taken as to the form of the transfer not complying with the articles of association and owing to prohibitory orders having been rece...
Tag this Judgment!Tadi Bulli Tammireddi, and Tadi Harinarayanareddi, Minor by Father and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad236; (1922)42MLJ570
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition tiled by the respondent against the appellants. One Gangi Reddi died in May 1917 leaving a widow Subbamma (the 3rd defendant). He had two sons, Thammayya, and Bulli Tammireddi, the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is the son of Thammayya and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. Plaintiff's father died in 1902. The plaintiff who attained majority in 1916 lived with the 1st defendant till about July 1919. The Subordinate fudge passed a decree for partition directing the 1st defendant to account for his management of the family properties from six months prior to the death of Gangi Reddi, i.e. from October 1916. He held that the business in opium carried on by the 1st defendant was his exclusive business and not joint family business and that the plaintiff was not bound to bear any part of the loss incurred in that business. As regards the choultry founded by Gangi Reddi, he held that there was no endowment in respect of the usuf...
Tag this Judgment!Kondine Kamaya and anr. Vs. Kovidena Ramamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad95; 74Ind.Cas.458
1. A preliminary objection has been raised that no second appeal lies. We are inclined to think that this is a good objection, and that the failure to give the petitioners notice before the sale though they had attained majority between the date of decree, and the date of execution is a mere irregularity in publishing the sale which would bring the application within Rule 90.2. But it is unnecessary to decide this point as, assuming that the application can be treated as one under Section 47, it was clearly out of time under Article 106 of the Limitation Act, hot having been made within one month of the sale.3. For the proposition that Art.- 166 and not Article 181 will apply even to applications which fall under Section 47, there is ample authority in Muthiah Chetiiar v. Bawa Sahib 26 Ind. Cas. 46; Thekkedath Neelu Neithiar v. Subramania Moothan 53 Ind. Cas. 809: 11 L.W. 59; Satish Chandra v. Nishi Chandra Dutta 54 Ind. Cas. 431and Pasumarti Payidanna v. Ganti Latishminarasamma 29 Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Jarugumilli Brahmayya, (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend Rajeswaramma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad373; (1922)43MLJ229
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, 'Where a Zamindar makes a post settlement inam grant of a portion of a village with both varams on a permanent kattubadi, is the grantee a landholder within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act?' It is not part of the duty of the Full Bench to answer hypothetical questions; and this question must be read, in the light of the facts of the case, to mean 'where a Zemindar makes a post settlement inam grant of a portion of a village on 'the terms of the document of February 7th, 1875, Exhibit A, is the grantee a landholder within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act?' By that document the Zamindar of Pittapur assigned to the grantee a portion of the village with a cist of Rs. 58 in perpetuity and to be used,as the grantee pleased. Before that date there had been a grant to another for a-terra on a cist of Rs. 158. Rs. 100 was stated in the document to be struck off as ...
Tag this Judgment!Eagala Nagappa Naidu (Dead) and ors. Vs. P. Munuswamy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ432
1. In Second Appeal No. 314 of 1920: This second appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of a contract--for the sale of the suit land--executed by the 2nd defendant on 10th October 1913 in favour of plaintiffs. The 1st defendant, to whom the land was sold by the 2nd defendant on 14th March 1916, is the contesting defendant. The District Munsif decreed the suit; but, on appeal by the 1st defendant, the Subordinate Judge held that there was no contract and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The alleged contract is evidenced by Ex. A, the material portion of which, runs as follows :--'In respect of the lands which you and others had sold to my mother Ammoyammal on the 2nd October 1902, you executed a cultivation Muchilika to me on the 10th October 1913 specifying the lands with particulars of numbers. The amount mentioned in the said sale deed is Rs. 600. And the amount of small loans taken from time to time is Rs. 200. On payment being made of the total amount ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »