Chennai Court November 1922 Judgments
Jagannatha Sastry Vs. Sarathambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad321; 71Ind.Cas.530; (1923)44MLJ202
Wallace, J.1. In this case the lower Court refused to issue a Commission for the examination of two of the petitioner's witnesses, who live more than 200 miles from the Court-house, and cannot therefore be compelled to attend by ordinary process.2. The petitioner contends that, as a matter of law, the Court was bound to issue.a Commission. The respondent contends that it was entirely a matter for the discretion of the Court. The point is one on which reported authorities speak with an uncertain voice.3. The practice in English Courts undoubtedly is that it is a matter of judicial discretion for the trying Court to issue a commission, and the Calcutta High Court has usually interpreted the pertinent sections of the old and the present Civil Procedure Codes in that sense: vide cases reported in Amrith Nath Jha v. Dhunput Singh Bahadur (1873) 20 W.R. 253, Adamji Khadi Bhai v. Issuf Ahmed Mulla (1912) 16 I.C. 750 , and A.E. Saleji v. Ahmed Munsaji Salaji (1913) 19 I.C. 643; though in the 2...
Tag this Judgment!Vazhayil Parkum Thattan Kunhi Kutty and anr. Vs. Vazhyil Parkum Thatta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad452; (1923)44MLJ274
Wallace, J.1. The suit is one for partition by the plaintiff who is a member of the Thattan caste in North Malabar, which caste follows Makhathayam Law. Various issues were framed, but the original Court dealt with two only, issue II, whether the properties are impartible, and issue XIV, whether the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of the deceased Valia Nambi, the owner of the property sought to be partitioned. The original Court held that the property is impartible, which finding was enough to dispose of the suit, and that the plaintiff was what is known as a Veetukutti, or the son of a Sam-bandham wife who is not brought to her husband's house, and that such a Veetukutti is not entitled to a share in his father's property. The appellate Court agreed with the original Court on the last two points, but did not consider the first. It is urged before us by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, that the lower Courts have erred in law in coming to these conclusions.2. To take t...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathi Avergal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad602; 73Ind.Cas.217; (1923)44MLJ424
ORDER1. These are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decision of this Court in Appeal No. 374 of 1919 and for consolidation of the suit in question in that appeal and the suit in question in Appeal No. 373 of 1919, in respect of which leave to appeal has already been given, the latter application being made under Order 45 Rule 4 C.P.C. The consolidation is asked for purposes of valuaation; and it is not disputed that, unless consolidation is allowed, the case in Appeal No. 574 of 1919 will not fulfil the requirement of Section 110 C.P.C. in respect of the amount of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of first instance or the subject matter in dispute in appeal.2. Under Order 45, Rule 4 consolidation is admissible, only when the suits in question involve substantially the same questions for determination and have been decided by the same judgment. We can easily hold that the two suits in question before us do involve substantially the same que...
Tag this Judgment!Vazhayilparkum Thattan Kunhi Kutty and anr. Vs. Vazhyilparkam Thattan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.145
1. The suit is one for partition by the plaintiff who is a member of the Thattan caste in North Malabar, which caste follows Makhattayam Law. Various issues were framed, but the original Court dealt with two only, Issue No. II, whether the properties are impartible and Issue No. XIV, whether the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of the deceased Valia Nambi, the owner of the property sought to be partitioned. The original Court held that the property is impartible which finding was enough to dispose of the suit, and that the plaintiff was what is known as Veetukutti, or the son of a Sambandham wife who is not brought to her husband's house, and that such a Veettukutti is not entitled to share in his father's property. The Appellate Court agreed with the original Court on the last two points but did not consider the first. It is urged before us by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, that the lower Courts have erred in law in coming to these conclusions.2. To take the first i...
Tag this Judgment!Budavaram Narasimhulu Chetti Vs. Noota Ibbundrum Nagaram Varu by Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ240
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Chittoor in Small Cause Suit No. 107 of 1921. The suit was brought for a sum of Rs. 28-0-0 and interest thereon Rs. 9-10-0 in all for Rs. 37-10-0 alleged to be due on account by the defendants to the Vysia community of Mogarala village in Chandragiri Taluk, as evidenced by a deed executed by the 1st defendant. It says 'On 3rd March 1918, I, Budhavaram Narasimhulu Chetti said at the time of the death of Budhavaram Chengalroya Chetty that I would pay Rs. 28-0-0 to Mogarala Nootayibandum Nagaramvaru as charity. Interest should be charged hereon at the rate of Re. 1-0-0 per cent per mensem. I shall pay the amount of principal and interest thereon to the aforesaid Nootayibandam Nagaramvaru on 15-10-1918 '. There is clear evidence that the 1st defendant did undertake to pay Rs. 28-0-0. and interest to the Vysia community of the village in question.2. The main objection taken by the 1st defendant before me is...
Tag this Judgment!Dronamraju Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Vissapragada Vedayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad447; 73Ind.Cas.188; (1923)44MLJ373
Phillips, J.1. In this suit it has been found one square yard of house site was included in the mortgage deed merely to give jurisdiction to the Peddapur Sub-Registrar, who registered the document, whereas the property really intended to be mortgaged was situated in Amalapur. Following the decisions in Harendra Lal Roy Choudhri v. Haridasi Debt 27 M.L.J. 80 and in Biswanath Prasad. v. Chandra Narayan Choudhry I.L.R. (1921) Cal. 509 it has been held that the mortgage deed is invalid as being 'in fraud of the registration law.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has, however, found that the personal covenant to repay is not invalid, and has given a decree for that part of the claim that is not barred by limitation, holding that Article 116 of the Limitation Act is applicable, in accordance with the ruling of Amir Ali, J. in Joginee Mohan Chatterjee v. Bhoothnath Ghosal I.L.R. (1902) Cal. 654. In appeal it is contended that that ruling is wrong, and that, as the registration of the mortgage d...
Tag this Judgment!Lagadapati Venkatarangabushanam Vs. Karella Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.131
Spencer, J.1. This is a petition under Section 107 of the Government of India Act requesting the High Court to interfere with an order passed in execution proceedings by the Assistant Agent, Badrachelam, directing a warrant to issue for the execution of a decree which the petitioner maintains to have been satisfied. The petitioner first applied to the Court of the Agency Commissioner, but his appeal was returned with the endorsement that no appeal lay from the Assistant Agent's order. Under Rule XXIV of the Agency Rules, the petitioner might have preferred a petition to Government against the Agency Commissioner's order, and if he had done so, and if the Government thought fit, they would have referred the petition to this Court. Instead of adopting that course, he has invoked the High Court's extraordinary power of superintendence.2. In my opinion, this is not a fit; case for our exercise of those powers for the following reasons. Rule VIII provides an appeal to the Court of the Agenc...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Srinivasalu Reddiar and anr. Vs. Govinda Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad239; 71Ind.Cas.799; (1923)44MLJ138
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case the first accused, a landowner, and the second accused, his agent, have been found guilty of theft.2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant, are these: The first accused bought some land from P.W. 2. That land is situated in a village. There is a large tank in that village where there is grown a large quantity of vital grass used for purposes of thatching. The landowners of that village have rights to that grass and it appears to be the custom to allow the grass to grow for several years and then cut it and divide it, first allowing so much of the cut-grass to the actual cutters of the grass and so much to persons employed to watch the grass during the years in which it has been growing. There are apparently some ten persons entitled to share in this grass. P. W. 2 was one of them. He having sold his land to the first accused, the first accused claimed, no doubt bona fide, that with that land went the right to the share ...
Tag this Judgment!Davud Beevi Ammal Vs. R.R. Radhakrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad467; (1923)44MLJ309
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. By a deed of absolute sale one Rarnachandra Ayyar sold certain lands to the 3rd defendant purporting to act for himself and as the guardian, protector and father of his minor son, the 2nd defendant. The rights of the 3rd defendant are now vested in the plaintiff. The 1st and 2nd defendants are members of a joint Hindu family and the lands in question were their joint property. At the time of the sale the 3rd defendant obtained from the 1st defendant a security bond by which the 1st defendant gave him an indemnity against the loss that might arise by any claim of the minor 2nd defendant. That bond took the form of a charge to the extent of Rs. 8,000 on certain other lands which it appears also formed part of the joint family property. This suit is brought for a general partition of the joint family property and it is prayed that, in that partition, the suit lands shall be allotted to the 1st defendant, so that, whether he was entitled to alienate them ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramaswami Chetty Vs. Doraisami Alias Latchuman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad465; 73Ind.Cas.409; (1923)44MLJ299
1. This Second Appeal arises from a suit for partition by the plaintiffs against their father, the 1st defendant and the 2nd and 3rd defendants, 2nd defendant being an alienee of certain property under a decree against the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs. The question is whether that decree binds the plaintiffs, in as much as it is said that it was obtained against them, when they were minors in circumstances which make it invalid. Those circumstances were set out in the plaint as being that the decree was obtained by fraud and was not binding on the minor plaintiffs.2. The fraud in question was not further specified in the plaint. Primarily however we are concerned with the grounds, on which the lower appellate Court has given judgment in the plaintiff's favour. Those grounds are not that there was generally any fraud in the obtaining by the 3rd defendant of the decree or in the purchase by the 2nd defendant at the subsequent Court sale but that the 2 to 5 defendants then in that sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »