Chennai Court February 1922 Judgments
Sudalaimuthu Kudumban Vs. Andi Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad186; 66Ind.Cas.104; (1922)42MLJ484
1. This is a petition asking us to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a small cause. The petitioner alleges that he came to know of the decree, which had been passed on 31-3-1920, only about two weeks before he filed his petition on 30-7-1920. Unfortunately owing, as the lower court has found, solely to a mistake of his pleader's gumasta, he did not pay with his petition the whole of the decree amount. On the other side objecting that his payment was deficient he however, made good the deficiency. But he did so after the time of 30 days from the date of his knowledge of the decree within which his petition would have been in time The question then was whether the court could excuse the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has refused to do so and we have been asked to revise its order of refusal.2. The Lower Court has dealt with the matter at considerable length, although it is really in our opinion very...
Tag this Judgment!Kasivasi Chokkalinga Tambiram Vs. Ramanadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.586
1. This is an appeal by an alienee of mortgaged property against an order declaring in what order the mortgaged properties are to be sold. The Subordinate Judge has directed that the property alienated to the appellant should be sold first, and the property in the hands of defendants Nos. 4 to 6 which was sold to them free from all encumbrances should be sold next, and that the property in the possession of the mortgagor should be sold last. Under the sale-deed by the mortgagor to the appellant a sum of Rs. 11,508 was directed to be paid towards the balance due on the mortgage. Admittedly no portion of this amount was paid until after the mortgage suit was filed and, consequently, it is only fair to hold as the Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant was most largely in default in the payment of the mortgage-debt. It is now contended in appeal that the appellant's alienees having paid Rs. 11,500 into Court, appellant is not liable to pay any further amount towards interest or cos...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal Vs. Rama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ290
1. We have before us a Civil Revision Petition and an appeal against an order.2. The appeal against the order can be dealt with shortly. The order in question is one regarding a compromise between the parties. Decree in terms of that compromise was passed later. It is impossible to see how there can be an appeal against the order, when it has become merged in the subsequent decree,3. The appeal against the order must be dismissed with costs.4. The Civil Revision Petition is against an order of the lower court refusing on the application of the plaintiff, here petitioner, to set aside the decree already referred to as passed in pursuance of the compromise. Unfortunately that application was headed as made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the exercise of the inherent powers of the court, The lower court quite rightly refused to use its inherent powers in this case with reference to authority, including the dictum of Srinivasa Aiyangar J., in Arunachallam v. Sabapathy ...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal Vs. Rama Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad446; 70Ind.Cas.425
1. We have before us a civil revision petition and an appeal against an order.2. The appeal against the order can be dealt with shortly. The order in question is one regarding a compromise between the parties. Decree in terms of that compromise was passed later. It is impossible to see how there can be an appeal against that order, when it has become merged in the subsequent decree.3. The appeal against the order must be dismissed with costs.4. Civil Revision Petition is against an order of the lower Court refusing on the application of the plaintiff, here petitioner, to set aside the decree already referred to passed in pursuance of the compromise. Unfortunately, that application was headed as made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the exercise of the. inherent powers of the Court. The lower Court quite rightly refused to use its inherent powers in this case with reference to authority, including the dictum hi Srinivasa, Aiyengar, J., in Arunachellam Chetty v. Sabap...
Tag this Judgment!Velayuda Mudaliar Vs. Sundarasam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.482
1. In this case the District Munsif, after framing issues, ended his judgment, 'The plaintiffs are absent. The suit is dismissed with costs.' The respondents-plaintiffs before us then brought a regular appeal against the dismissal by the District Munsif. The Subordinate Judge dealt with this as a regular appeal, allowed it and remanded the case for fresh disposal after taking any evidence which might be adduced by both sides. That order is objected to here as without jurisdiction in the supplementary grounds of appeal which have been filed before us. It is, we believe, the practice in this Court to allow an objection to be taken to an order on the ground of want of jurisdiction by way of appeal. In any event, in the present case we should be ready to treat the appeal as a petition for revision and use our re visional powers.2. The objection to the lower Appellate Court's disposal of the matter as an appeal is that the dismissal by the District Munsif was, we must hold with reference to...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zamindar of Singampatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad325; (1922)ILR65Mad518
1. This reference arises out of the assessment of income-tax under Act VII of 1918 of the income, derived by the Zamindar of Singampatti from forests and fisheries within the ambit of his zamindari. The assessee objects to the assessment (1) on the ground that the income is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, not chargeable to income-tax; (2) that the assessment is illegal as contravening the terms of his permanent sanad for the zamindari and the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802.2. It is convenient to consider first the effect of the sanad, a copy of which has been filed before us, and the terms of the Regulation. The sanad is a lengthy document largely reproducing the language of the Regulation under which it was granted. Its general effect is this--in view of the bad effect of fluctuations in the assessment of land revenue, both in obstructing the development of the country and diminishing the security of property, the British Government...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zemindar of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.504
1. This reference arises out of the assessment of income-tax under Act VII of 1918 of the income derived by the Zemindar of Singampatti from forests and fisheries within the ambit of his zemindari. The assessee objects to the assessment, (a); on the ground that income is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, and, therefore, not chargeable to income-tax, and (b) that the assessment is illegal as contravening the terms of his permanent sanad of the zemindari and the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802.2. It is convenient to consider first the effect of the sanad a copy of which has been filed before us, and the terms of the Regulation. The sanad is a lengthy document largely reproducing the language of the Regulation under which it was granted. Its general effect is this, that in view of the bad effect of fluctuations in the assessment of land revenue both in obstructing the development of the country and diminshing the security of property, the British Governm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raghava Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad440; (1922)43MLJ382
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The Chief Justice. In my judgment, this matter is so far concluded by authority that it would not be possible, without a decision of the Privy Council to the contrary, to say that there is power in the High Court of Madras to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a case where an order is made by the Court suspending a Vakil from practice. We have been referred to two cases of the Privy Council : In re Minchin (1850) 4 M.L.A. 220 where, on an appeal taken to the Privy Council from an order of the High Court, acting not under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent but under another clause giving a similar power in other cases, namely, Clause 8, the Privy Council pointed out that, if the appellant came there under the Charter, he had no right to appeal, because by the terms of the Charter, the appeal given is confined to judicial acts, namely, 'judgments or determinations', The same view was expressed a few years earlier in Morgan v. Leech (1841) 2...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramanujam Chetty Vs. P.R. Padmanabham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad229(1); 70Ind.Cas.784
ORDERWalter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case, in view of the insolvency of the respondent, it is not desirable that pending the appeal the amount which he has to recover for costs should be paid to him, because if the appeal is successful, it is obvious that the successful appellant would not get back the costs which he would be entitled to. Therefore it is a case where it is right, that there should be a stay of the execution of the decree for costs on terms. The terms, as I understand it, usually imposed here are terms of payment into Court. The terms, as far as costs are concerned, which are usually imposed by the Court of Appeal in England, are payment to the Solicitor of the respondent on his personal undertaking to re-pay in the event of the appeal being successful; that personal undertaking being one by an officer of the Court, against when it can be enforced in a summary way under the powers that the Court has over its own officers; it is a very convenient practice. There is no rea...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. T. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ406
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 1st plaintiff is the appellant before us in this second appeal which is called an Appeal against Appellate Order.2. This litigation has been going on for the last 26 years, the suit having been filed in 1895.3. It was a suit for partition brought by the plaintiff against his father, brothers and other members of his (family and alienees.)4. In 18 99 when the old Civil Procedure Code was in force the District Judge on appeal made a decree as follows: 'It is ordered that the items Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 15 mentioned in the Schedule C and the moveables in Schedule D (except items 5, 10 and 37) of the plaint be divided into live shares and that the plaintiff be given a one fifth share of the same etc.'5. As pointed out by Bhashyam Iyengar, J. in Mallikarjunadusetti v. Lingamurthi Pantulu I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 244 . 'In the case of a suit for partition there is to be but one decree' (under the old Civil Procedure Code) 'but before making that decree the Court may appoint a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »