Chennai Court March 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.
Pudiava Nadan Vs. Pavanasa Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad215; (1922)43MLJ596
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'Is a Hindu who is congenitally blind thereby excluded from the inheritance, or has the rule become obsolete?'2. In Surayya v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1919) Mad. 4 Sadasiva Ayyar and Napier, JJ. answered this question by saying that the rule had become obsolete. This case having been tried before that decision was known, the point was not taken at the trial or on first appeal; but the appellant was allowed to raise the point by the Referring Bench. The Court was told in the course of the arguments that it is alleged that the man in question is not, in fact, congenitally blind and it will be for the Referring Bench to consider hereafter whether that matter is one which is now proper to be enquired into. For the purpose of this reference we must assume that he was congenitally blind and treat this case as, in effect, an appeal from Surayya v. Subbamma I.L.R.(1919) Mad. 4 .3. It is argued that under the Hindu Law, a co...
Pavadai Pathan and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad351; (1922)43MLJ191
Spencer, J.1. I feel no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was right in treating a lease of lands for growing casuarina trees to be used for fuel as a lease for agricultural purposes within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. With due deference while accepting that the case was rightly decided, I am unable to follow the opinion of Bhashyam Aiyangar J. in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan I.L.R. (1901) Mad. 421 that the word 'agricultural' in its more general sense comprehends the raising of vegetables, fruits and other garden products as food for man and beast, if the learned Judge intended thereby to limit it to the raising of food products. For to so restrict the word would be to exclude flower, indigo, cotton, jute, flax, tobacco and other such cultivation. For the purpose of that particular case, which related to a lease of betel gardens, considering the policy of favouring agriculture, upon finding that they produced a form of food, the connection bet...
Pavadi Pathan and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.657
Spencer, J.1. I feel no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was right in treating a lease of lands for growing casuarina trees to be used for fuel as a lease for agricultural purposes within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. With due deference, while accepting that the case was rightly decided, I am unable to follow the opinion of Bhashyam Iyenga J. in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan 24 M. 421 that the word 'agriculture' in its more general sense comprehends the raising of vegetables, fruits and other garden products as food for man and beasts, if the learned Judge intended thereby to limit it to the raising of food products. For to so restrict the word would be to exclude flower, indigo, cotton, jute, flax, tobacco and other such cultivation. For the purpose of that particular case, which related to a lease of betel gardens, considering the policy of favouring agriculture, upon finding that they produced a form of food, the connection between agriculture...
Konga Ramasami Iyer and anr. Vs. Ponnusami Alias Tambayasami Maniagara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad452; 70Ind.Cas.769
1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a difference of opinion between my brothers Sadasiva Aiyar and Phillipps, JJ., on a subject as to whether a former decision is res judicata as between the persons who were arrayed against one another not in the relation of plaintiff and defendant but who were both defendants in the former proceedings. The present suit is brought on a mortgage executed by one Thumbiasami Maniagar on which it is sought to make him and his sons liable. One of the sons, who is the 4th defendant in this case, was born after the date of the mortgage on which the suit was brought. In the year 1899 an inter-pleader suit Original Suit No. 63 was brought in the Tinnevelly Court and in that case there were certain proceedings the nature of which we are not concerned with, between Thumbiasami Maniagar and certain other persons and that suit ended in a compromise based on an award of certain arbitrators. Subsequently, in the year 1908, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, two of t...
Varankkot Illath Subramaniyam Nambudri, Karnavan and Manager of the Il ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad48; (1922)43MLJ477
1. A decree was obtained in Original Suit No. 4 of 1913 by the respondents before us against a junior member of the illom of the Appellant. In execution of the decree, there was a sale on 26-8-1915. At the time of the sale, the judgment-debtor died and was represented by the Karnavan of the illom. The decree-holder was the purchaser in execution. He was allowed to set off the decree amount against the sale price and pay the balance. But as he stated that he could not deposit it within 15 days, the District Judge allowed him 6 days more time, that is, up to 16th September. The balance was actually deposited on 17th September, and afterwards, it was disposed of for the benefit of the illom and with the consent of the Karnavan (M.P. No. 787 of 1915). The sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued to the purchaser in September 1915. The present petition is tiled in December 192u, under Sections 47 and 151, praying the District Judge to hold that the sale was a nullity. The Distri...
Abdul Wahab Sahib Vs. M. Rokia Bibi Sahiba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.903
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This matter arises out of a report submitted by the Official Referee in pursuance of an order dated the 8th of April 1921. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a dissolution of partnership and for the taking of the partnership accounts, the case for the plaintiff being that he and his father, the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib, were trading in partnership from the 1st of September 1015 on the terms mentioned in the plaint. The defendants are sued as the legal representatives of the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 filed written statements denying that the partnership was carried on on the terms mentioned in the plaint and alleged that the plaintiff worked in the business only up to the end of October 1917 and that he had overdrawn his share of the: profits. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement putting the plaintiff to the proof of his claim. The 4th defendant is the plaintiff himself and is on record as ore of the legal repr...
In Re: Chakrakodi Sham Shastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ67
1. We have no hesitation in finding that the conviction of the accused in this case was vitiated by the joinder of charges for more than three offences at one trial. The third charge related to the false entries, E E. 12 and E E.9, and these entries were concerned with separate transactions by which the accused took out two advances of Rs. 28,700 and Rs. 1,950 respectively on two separate deposits of areca of which 525 maunds of old areca and 520 maunds of new areca were not received. These constitute, in our opinion, two separate offences, for, as was pointed out in Queen Empress v. Moti Lal Lahiri ILR(1899) Cal 560 which was followed in another decision of the same court in Raman Behari Das v. Emperor ILR (1913) Cal 722 each false entry which amounts to an act of falsification constitutes a separate offence, although a number of false entries might be proved to cover one defalcation.2. In this instance under the third charge there were two acts of defalcation covered by two false ent...
Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Kandaswamy Mudaly and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad58; 70Ind.Cas.168
Spencer, J.1. Besides the decree that the plaintiff should recover the suit' property from the purchaser, there was a common decree for costs in Original Suit No. 430 of 1917 against the we defendants, viz. the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 402 of 1916 and the auction-purchaser at the sale which took place in execution of that decree. The decree-holder and the auction purchaser filed a common appeal and the first Court's judgment was reversed, although one of the appellants (the auction-purchaser) was, at the time of the appellate judgment, dead and his legal representatives had not been brought on record.2. It is contended that the appeal had abated, that the Court had no power to pass any decree in favour of the deceased appellant, and that the judgment and the decree were nullities.3. In Somasundaram Chettiar v. Vaithilinga Mudaliar 41 Ind. Cas. 546 and in Artho Rama Rahu v. Artho Padhi 20 Ind. Cas. 952 it has been held that under Order XLI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedur...
T. Kathissabai and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.82
1. This appeal relates to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, for the bungalow and compound (27.64 acres in extent) occupied by the Collector of Malabar. The Deputy. Collector awarded Rs. 36,302-7-9, but the Subordinate Judge awarded Rs. 35.234 and odd finding an arithmetical, mistake in the award of Rs. 1,457-14-0. The latter's award was really in other respects a slight enhancement. In both cases the valuation has been based on the net annual rental value of the property, the bungalow with furniture and compound having been leased for the' last 30 or 40 years at Rs. 150 per mensem.2. The first objection taken in this appeal is, that the value of the land should have been ascertained separately and compensation awarded separately, but in the present case there is no evidence worthy of the name of the value of the land or of similar land in the vicinity, and it would be impossible for this Court to assess such value. Apart from this, we think that, when a building ...
Chakrakodi Shama Shastri Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad435; 72Ind.Cas.622
1. We have no hesitation in finding that the conviction of the accused in this case was vitiated by the joinder of the charges for more than three offences at one trial, The third charge related to two false entries EE--12 and EE--9, and these entries were concerned with separate transactions by which the accused took out two advance of Rs. 28,700 and Rs. 1,950, respectively, on two separate deposits of areca, of which 525 mauads of old areca and 520 maunds of new areca were not received. These constitute, in our opinion, two separate offences, for, as was pointed out in Queen Empress v. Mati Lal Lohiri 3 C.W.N. 412 : 13 Ind. Dec. 959, which was followed in another decision of the same Court in Raman Behary Das v. Emperor 22 Ind. Cas. 729 : each false entry which amounts to an act of falsification constitutes a separate offence, although a number of false entries might be proved to cover one defalcation.2. In this instance under the third charge there were two acts of defalcation cover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »