Chennai Court November 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rathanamasari and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.214
1. This is an appeal in a Land Acquisition Case against the decree of the District Court of Salem. Three plots of lands, survey Nos. 29, 34 and 35, suitable for house building, were acquired for the purpose of building a hostel for the Salem College in 1915, the date of the notification being July 1915. On plots Nos. 34 and 35, there was a bungalow and that was also acquired. The Deputy Collector awarded in the first instance for the three plots of land including the bungalow and the houses standing on them Rs. 12,170-13-8, and 15 per cent, the statutory compensation in addition. The District Judge has increased that award to Rs. 15,620 including the 15 per cent, for compensation. The claimants have appealed to this Court and they claim that their properties are worth more and that they should get Rs. 8,333-5-7 extra, that is, Rs. 23,953-5-7 in all.2. At the opening of the case the learned Advocate for the appellants wanted us to admit in evidence in this Court the Tahsildar's reports ...
Ramabadra Chetty Vs. V. Ramaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad350; (1923)44MLJ284
1. It is contended that the Court's power to interfere with a sale held by an Official Receiver is limited to cases where there has been some malafides on the part of the Receiver or of the purchaser.2. Reliance is placed on the case of Ex parte Lloyd: Re Peters (1882) 47 L.T. 64 where the Master of the Rolls observed that the Court would not interfere unless the trustee did that which was so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would so act. The same objection was taken in Thiruvenkatachariar v. Thangaya Ammal I.L.R. 39 Mad. 479 and overruled. It was then observed 'It (the case of Ex parte Lloyd: Re Peters (1882) 47 L.T. 64 is not an authority for the proposition that where proper reasons are given by a Court for holding that the action of the Receiver was irregular and has prejudiced the general interests of the creditors, it should not set aside the order passed by the Receiver. 'We adopt these observation in dealing with the present case where the Receiver's act w...
Koilpillai Samban Vs. Sappanimuthu Samban and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad354; (1923)44MLJ247
Ramesam, J.1. Following the decision in Mahomed Akbar zaman Khan v. Sukdeo Pande (1911) 13 C. L. J. 467, and Munna Lal v. Radha Kishan I.L.R.(1915) All. 591, (the latter of which was cited before the District Munsif but not distinguished or otherwise dealt with by him). I hold that when the party has applied for a chalan and the delay in issuing the chalan, is the delay of the officer of the Court and after the issue of the chalan, he deposited the amount immediately, the maxim nunc proptunc applies and the application for chalan (in such circumstances) is equivalent to the deposit.2. Even if excusing delay is necessary, the view of the District Munsif that the High Court by its rules cannot affect. Section 17 of provincial Small Cause, Courts Act is clearly opposed to Sudalaimuthu Kudumban v. Andi Reddiar I.L.R.(1922) Mad 628. The statement of the District Munsif that the deposit was not made in time on account of the negligence of the petitioner is opposed to all the facts that appea...
Ramabhadra Chetty Vs. V. Ramasami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.374
1. It is contended that the Court's power to interfere with a sale held by an Official Receiver is limited to cases where there has been some mala fides on the part of the Receiver or of the purchaser.2. Reliance is placed on the case of Ex parte Lloyd, In re Peters (1883) 47 L.T. 64 where the Master of the Rolls observed that the Court would not interfere unless the trustee did that which was so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would so act. The same objection was taken in Thiru-venkatachariar v. Thangayi Ammal 29 Ind. Cas. 294 : 39 M. 479 : 17 M.L.T. 432 and overruled. It was then observed: 'It [the case of Ex parte Llyod, In re Peters (1883) 47 L.T. 64 ] is not an authority for the proposition that where proper reasons are given by a Court for holding that the action of the Receiver was irregular and has prejudiced the general interests of the creditors, it should not set aside the order passed by the Receiver'. We adopt these observations in dealing with the p...
B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathi Avergal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ217
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. These are two applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decisions of this Court constituted as at present. The actual pecuniary amounts involved in the two appeals are Rs. 400 and Rs. 600 respectively. Under SS.109 and no of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 leave to appeal has to be granted where the amount or the value of the subject matter of the suit is Rs. 10,000 or upwards and the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is the same sum or upwards or property of like amount or value is involved directly or indirectly, provided where the decree affirms the decision of the Court immediately below some substantial question of law is involved. In this case by reason of the value of the subject matter, the above provisions do not apply. There is, however, further a power under Section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure in this Court to give leave to appeal by certifying tha...
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sirur Mutt Minor by Guardian Ad Litem P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad288; (1923)44MLJ187
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O.S. No. 44 of 1919 on his file. The suit was brought by the Swami of Admar Mutt in Udipi against the present Swami of the Sirur Mutt to recover from the assets of that Mutt the amount claimed to be due under a ' Sampratipatti ' or settlement of accounts signed by the late Swami and marked as Ex. A. The defendant denied the genuineness of Ex. A and the existence of the debt and the admissibility, of the document in evidence and he further pleaded that even if the debt was true it was not binding on the Mutt or its properties as it was not contracted for any necessity or benefit of the Mutt, the Mutt having ample income to meet all its legitimate expenses,2. On these pleadings two issues were framed, namely, whether the patti sued on was true and valid and receivable in evidence and whether the debt was binding on the defendant's Mutt. The Subordinate Judge found both these i...
Sri Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu Vs. Sarangapani Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.647
1. The plaintiff in this case in 1907 brought the suit holding from one Gurunatha Reddi. Since then it is in evidence that Gurunatha Reddi continued to pay rent; receiving it from the plaintiffs. But Gurunatha Reddi continued to be the pattadar. For the rent of Faslies 1322 and 1323 the second defendant the landlord, here the appellant, brought the holding to sale as the rent had not been paid; and the first defendant was the auction-purchaser. The lower Appellate Court has held that the sale was invalid because notice of it was given to Gurunatha Reddi and not to the plaintiffs.2. The decision must, in our opinion, turn on the construction of Sections 146 and 147 of the Madras Estates Land Act and on whether those sections can apply, where the transfer of a holding has occurred, as the transfer was, as in this case, before the Act. There may be some doubt as to the law before 1908; and there is authority in Ekambara Ayyar v. Meenatchi Ammal 27 M. 401 and Peram Narasigadu v. Machireddi...
Rama Pattar and ors. Vs. Kumaran Chidayath Karnavan and Manager Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad316; (1923)44MLJ236
Ramesam, J.1. These are revision petitions against the judgments of the District Munsif of Alatur in four small cause suits. The facts out of which the suits arose are practically admitted. The plaintiff is the karnavan of a Tavazhi known as the Kumaranchidayath house. Besides this, there were in the Tarwad two other Tavazhis, viz., the Eravamannattil house and the Puliyankalath house. In a Kama Pattar litigation of 1887, there was a compromise between all the Raman Kutty Tavazhis by which the michavaram collected from the I tenants of 'Kuzhalamannom 'was allotted for the expenses of the members of the first house (Ex. A). Relying on this compromise the. present suits are filed for recovering the michavaram from four of the kanom tenants in Kuzhal-mannom amsomThe tenants pleaded that the rents were paid to the karnavan of the tarwad who is D.W. 1 and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the rents.2. The District Munsif thought that plaintiff's claim falls within the exception to the r...
Rosa Maria Bai and anr. Vs. Jacob Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.881
Spencer, J.1. I have come to the same conclusion as my learned brother that Letters of Administration should not have been granted on the Will propounded by the plaintiff.2. The delay of 20 years in presenting the Will for Probate has not been sufficiently explained. It is said to have been handed over by the testator to his brother's son the sole legatee. He died in 1902 or 1903 without taking any action.3. It is not clear in whose custody the Will has been since, but his son, who has been granted Letters of Administration by the District Judge on the present application, says that he only came to know of the existence of the Will three or four years ago.4. He adds that some documents were with his mother; but she has not been examined as a witness to prove proper custody since 1899, when Exhibit D purports to have been prepared.5. I regard it as one suspicious circumstance that this Will should have first seen the light of day 20 years after Prancis Padivala's death on the occasion w...
Arulanandam Vs. Arul Pakkiam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad375; (1923)44MLJ385
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a petition for divorce which comes before us under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869, asking us to confirm the decree on the District Judge of Madura to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Under Section 7 of that Act, subject to the other provisions of that Act, the High Court and the District Court shall in all suits and proceedings thereunder act and give relief on principles and rules which in the opinion of the said Courts are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial causes of England for the time being acts and gives relief. The evidence and the only evidence before the Court in this case was that of the petitioner himself. He swears that he went to his house one day and on gaining admission into his house, he found his wife there with the corespondent. He also swears that she left him that evening and has been living with the co-respondent and that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »