Chennai Court April 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.
P. Subrahmanya Somayajulu and ors. Vs. Y. Seethayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad1; 70Ind.Cas.729
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits, the subject of the appeals, or whether their jurisdiction is ousted by the Madras Estates Land Act. The suits are between the inhabitants of the village of Arepalli and their immediate landlords, the agraharamdars of that village. If the agraharamdars are landlords within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction by reason of Section 189:'Landholder' means a person owning an estate or part thereof and includes every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate.2. Whether this village is an 'estate' or not depends on Section 3(2)(d) which includes in the definition:Any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudiwaram thereof.3. It has been established that, where a grant or imam is a grant of both the la...
Sinanan Shukulathi Rowther and ors. Vs. Gulam Moideen Rowther Alias Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad24; 71Ind.Cas.508
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The petitioner purchased: the house in question at a Court-auction and obtained delivery on the 1st March 1918. The counter-petitioners caused disturbance whereupon various proceedings were taken from time to time. Finally, the keys of the house were handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police on the 14th November 1918. The petitioner made several applications for possession of the keys on the ground that they, had been taken from him by the Sub-Inspector; but on the 15th February 1921 an order was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing the return of the keys to the counter-petitioners. Within twenty days of this order the petitioner moved the same Magistrate to take action under Section 145. It is contended that, in the order passed by the Magistrate, there is no finding regarding the possession of the property in question. The contention seems to be well-founded, and I find that the Magistrate does not even attempt to deal with the question of poss...
In Re: the Arbitration Act and the Reference, to Arbitration by Messrs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.850
Kumaraswamy Sastriar, J.1. This is art application by one of the parties to a reference to arbitration to set aside the award which was passed by the arbitrators in pursuance of the submission. The petitioner entered into certain contracts with the counter-petitioner who was acting as agent of an English Firm, viz., Messrs. Johnstone Kelly and Macdona. Disputes arose between the parties as regards four indents and after some preliminary correspondence between the parties the matter in different was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Bradshaw of Messrs. Tetley and Whitley and Mr. Jackson, of Messrs. Beardsell & Co., under the terms of the arbitration clause in the indents. The case for the petitioner is that the arbitrators acted improperly and he states:(1) that one of them, Mr. Bradshaw, who was appointed at the instance of the petitioner insisted on payment to him of Rs. 400-0-0 as fees for the arbitration which sum he paid, (2) that the arbitrators gave notice on the 10th January 19...
Thavasimuthu Nadar and ors. Vs. Balaguruswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad304; 70Ind.Cas.673
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. These are two applications made by Sir M.C.T. Muthia Chetty for an injuction restraining the plaintiffs and defendants and the Receivers appointed in the suit from interfering with or disturbing Ids possession of the village of Melamarudur, which the parties to the suit seem to claim as their property. This village was the subject of a mortgage-decree obtained in the year 1915. This decree was assigned to Sir M.C.T. Muthia Chetty and he brought the village to sale which was held on 15th July 1918. The Nadars, represented by the plaintiffs and defendants in this suit, objected to the proclamation of sale and on their petition being disallowed, they filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the High Court. The sale took place on 15th July 1918. An application was made to set aside the sale. That application was also dismissed by the lower Court. Against this an appeal was filed to the High Court and it was also dismissed. The sale, therefore, in execution of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›