Chennai Court March 1922 Judgments
M. Vasudeva Muthu Shastry Vs. M. Vittal Shastry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad456; (1922)43MLJ379
Oldfield, J.1. The only question raised by this appeal is whether the decree is still executable by plaintiff, notwithstanding that his last application in 1910 was made over, three years before his present application in 1919. He alleges that it is, because time runs against him only from the application of 2nd defendant in 1918, with reference to Explanation 1 Article 182, Schedule I, Limitation Act.2. The decree is for partition, but it is not in the form contemplated by the present Code. For it awards to plaintiff, an aliquot part, specified as one quarter of certain family lands and the profits therefrom and also his costs, the ascertainment of the particular lands and the amount recoverable as profits being apparently reserved for execution. No doubt 'such a 'decree is not like a decree for money or for the delivery of specific property a decree in favour of the plaintiff alone' and 'in a suit for partition the decree is in favour of each sharer' Dost Mahomed Khan v. Said Begum I...
Tag this Judgment!Hariharamangalath Kizoor Variyath Samba Variyar Vs. Thaiparambil Kalat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ721
Odgers, J.1. In this case the only point argued is that of limitation. The respondent's vendor in 1903 obtained a theetu deed Ex. A which was assigned to the respondents in April 1904 by Ex. B for a period of 12 years and for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. Ex. A. was granted by the then female manager of the Kovilagam styled Valia Thambu ratty. It is not only a mortgage but also a conveyance of the trees on the land. The respondent obtained possession and enjoyed the property till February 1906, when he conveyed it to others who were subsequently evicted as the consequence of a suit brought by a subsequent thamburatty to set aside the theetu deed Ex. A on the ground that the vendor had no title to sell. This decree is dated 10-2-14, Ex. F in the case and by it the defendant (appellant here) is ordered to deliver up all documents relating to the suit property and re-transfer the same to plaintiff free from the mortgage and all other encumbrances created by the defendants or any person ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Goundan Vs. Kulandaivelu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad437; (1922)43MLJ716
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. At the instance of the petitioner the Joint Magistrate of Dindigal passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code on the 10th January 1922. This was preceded by an order of attachment under Sub-section 4 dated the 5th January. The parties were directed to tile written statements which were filed on the 1st February 1922 and the Magistrate on the same date made an order refusing to proceed with the enquiry under Section 145 on the ground that some proceedings haft already been taken under Section 144. The Magistrate says: 'It is true that the order passed under Section 141 Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub-Magistrate has now ceased to be in force and that the Sub-Magistrate had no jurisdiction under that section to give a decision as to who on a given date was in possession of the land. But on further consideration of the circumstances, which were not all before me when I passed my first order ex parte, I do not think that it is neces...
Tag this Judgment!Joravarmull Champalal Vs. Jeygopaldas Ghanshandas by His Agent Mugduth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad486; (1922)43MLJ132
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This case gives rise to a point of law which has been considered from various aspects both in England and in this country. The facts are these: The appellant in this Court went to an auction and made a bid of Rs. 29,200 which turned out to be the highest bid that was made, but before the property was knocked down he seems to have discovered that there was a mortgage on the property subject to which the sale was being conducted. It is not suggested that there had been a concealment about this, but merely that in point of fact it did come to the knowledge of the appellant only a few minutes after he made this bid and before the hammer fell. As soon as it did come to his knowledge he attempted - I say attempted because it was not given effect to - to retract his bid, but the auctioneer would not have it and knocked the property down to him for the figure that he had bid, and it is now sought, on behalf of the owner of the property, to enforce that against him, and the...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Sahib Vs. Hammad Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad43; 74Ind.Cas.812
Spencer, J.1. The appellant relies on Gulusam Bivi v. Ahmadsa Rowther 9 L.W. 5411 (1919) M.W.N. 284 as an authority for saying that mesne profits cannot be awarded in the final decree if there has been no direction in the preliminary decree either setting mesne profits or ordering an enquiry into mesne profits.2. If the plaintiff's right to mesne profits, is negatived in the preliminary decree and no appeal is preferred against the order disallowing them, it is obvious that he cannot raise the question again at the stage of passing the final decree; but if there is a prayer in the plaint (as here) for mesne profits and the omission to provide for them in the preliminary decree is due to inadvertence (as appears to be the case here), I cannot see why up till the passing of the final decree the matter of mesne profits should be deemed to be finally concluded. There is a decision in Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 40 of 1919 Ramaswami Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar 16 L.W. 297 : 43 M.L.J...
Tag this Judgment!Musaliarakath Muhamad Alias Bava Vs. M.R. Ry. Manavikrama the ZamorIn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad13; (1922)43MLJ317
Ayling, J.1. Appellant (and petitioner before us) was the 5th defendant in O.S. No. 354 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Tirur which was decreed in favour of Plaintiff, He preferred an appeal which was posted for disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Palghat on 10th February 1920. On that date, as appears from the record appellant was not present but a vakil Mr. V. Sivarama Panikkar holding vakalat from him was present in court and applied for an adjournment (M.P. No. 378 of 1920). This was refused. As far as I can gather, he seems to have then simply informed the court that as he had no instructions or papers, he could not argue the appeal and to have taken no further part in the proceedings. In these circumstances the Subordinate Judge instead of at once dismissing the appeal for default under Order 41, Rule 17 considered the evidence bearing on appellant's claim with reference to his appeal memorandum (1 use his own words) and dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Jurugumilli Brahmayya (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend, Rajeswaramma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad716
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?2. 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 zamindar 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 Pithapuram 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 term on a cist of Rs. 158. Rs. 100 was stated in the document to be struck off as th...
Tag this Judgment!Jurugumilli Brahmayya (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend Rajeswaramma V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.615
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is: 'Where a Zemindar makes a post settlement Inam giant of a portion of a village with both verams on a permanent kattubadi, is the grantee a landholder within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land-Act?'2. 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 7, 1875, Exhibit A, is the grantee a landholder within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act?' By the document the Zemindar 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 term on a cist of Rs. 158. Rs. 100 was stated in the document to be struck off as the grantee prov...
Tag this Judgment!Chelasami Atchamma and ors. Vs. Chelasami Venkatasubbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad423; 70Ind.Cas.748
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff's husband in this case and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 re the sons of one Chelasami Ramaswamy by his second wife. He had also two sons by his first wife and in 1892, a partition of the family property was affected. The reason for effecting the partition was that the first wife had died and there were disputes between the first wife's two sons and their step-mother.2. The question for decision in the appeal is whether, in that partition, all the members of the family became divided including not only the sons by the first wife but also the minor sons by the second wife or whether the father and the minor sons by the second wife remained a joint undivided family. It is the plaintiff's case that not only did the two sons by the first wife become divided but that all the members of the family effected a partition. There 13 no doubt a presumption that when there is a partition in a family there is a total partition and not merely a partial partition but this is a presump...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Subbarayan by Guardian Visalakshmi Achi Vs. Minor Natarajan by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad268; (1922)43MLJ168
Spencer, J.1. In disposing of an execution petition the Sub-Court of Mayavaram in an order passed on April 9th, 1919, which the District Judge of Tanjore confirmed on appeal, extended the period of 12 years after which Section 48, C.P.C. declares that no order for the execution of decree shall be made upon any fresh application. This 12 years period has been extended by the executing Court by the addition of a period equal to that during which a stay of execution of the decree was once obtained by an order of Court in 1913.2. I am of opinion that this is not permissible by law, and that Section 48, C.P.C. which contains an unqualified prohibition against execution of the decrees more than 12 years old, is not controlled by Section 15 of the Limitation Act, Section 15 of that Act speaks of the computation of periods of limitation with reference to the periods prescribed in schedule to the Act. Though the words 'in the schedule' do not occur in this section or in Section 19 as they do in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »