Chennai Court May 1922 Judgments
Fraser and Ross Vs. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.293; (1922)43MLJ211
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, C.P.C. of the Receivers appointed by the High Court in C.S. No. 6S5 of 1921 to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to make the petitioners parties to execution proceedings pending before him in E.A. No. 130 of 1922. This petition came up for admission on 1-5-1922 with an application for stay of proceedings. As the contesting respondent appeared in court and offered to take notice I directed the petition to be heard on 3-5-1922.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 111 of 1916 on the file of the Kumbakonam Subordinate Judge's Court obtained a decree on a simple mortgage bond against the members of the well known Nadar family of Tanjore on 12-4-1917, and on 13-9-1920 a final decree was passed in the suit and on 7-11-21 an order for sale was made. The sale was fixed for 30th January 1922 and it was adjourned to 20-3-22, Disputes having arisen between the members of the family, C.S. N...
Tag this Judgment!Thylayee Ammal Vs. Srirangaroya Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.228; (1922)43MLJ624
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This revision petition is against an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Erode dated 8-12-1921. An objection has been taken by Mr. Govindaraghava Iyer the learned vakil for the respondents that I have no power to interfere. He relied on Komalkutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakkal 23 M.L.J. 499 (Ayling and Napier, JJ.) and Empror v. Sakkamat Ali I.L.R. (1919) All. 302 (Knox, J.) A sentence in 36 Mad. 275 at p. 286 'Once he is so satisfied, his jurisdiction is complete and his subsequent action must be considered in relation to procedure, and not jurisdiction', quoted with approval and followed in Vellanki Srinivasa Jagannatha Rao v. Venkata Gopalakrishna Rao : (1919)37MLJ589 (Ayling, J.) produces the first impression that it decided that once the proceedings are properly started under Section 145, there can be no challenge of those proceedings before the High Court. But the words 'must be considered in relation to procedure' do not support such a view ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakammal and ors. Vs. C. Baktavatsulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad207; (1923)44MLJ23
Ramesam, J.1. The only point arising for decision in this appeal is the construction of the will (dated 29th August 1905 of Chennakesavalu Naidu, the last male owner who died on 4th September 1905 leaving a widow and a daughter. It provides for certain legacies in favour of his sister and Ors. (Cl. )2, 5 and 13). It directs that, until the widow attains proper age, the executors should pay for the domestic expenses of the widow the daughter, Rupees twenty per month from the interest and the rents of the houses (Cl. 7) that, if any special expenses require to be incurred for the daughter or the wife, the executors should consider what is proper and what is improper and should pay only what is proper (Cl 11). Finally it provides 'The executors should deliver over the aforesaid my properties and cash and all the other properties to my wife Kanchi Pushpamma after she attains the age of twenty years' this age being apparently what the testator meant by ' proper age' in Clause 7. The executo...
Tag this Judgment!M. Deivanayagam Pillai Vs. P.T.S. Diwan Mohideen Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad169; (1923)44MLJ39
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly refusing to try an election petition presentd under the District Municipalities Act V of 1920. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 were candidates at an election held on 1 5-3-1921 to fill up two vacancies in the Tinnevelly Municipality. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate. The respondents 1 and 2 were declared duly elected. Under Rule 1 for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election held under the Madras District Municipalities Act the petitioner applied within 7 days to the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly for a declaration that the election of respondents 1 and 2 were invalid on various grounds. The Subordinate Judge who at first granted an interim injunction ultimately refused to try the case on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try the election petition. I must at the outset say that it is very difficult to follow the reasoning of the learned Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Muniswamy Mudaliar Vs. Kajaratnara Pillai and Ots.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad495; (1923)44MLJ774
1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgments of my learned brothers who are more familiar with the practice of this Court than I am and with those judgments in general I agree. I have little to add.2. I think it should be made clear that the fact that this Court Sections a prosecution is no intimation to the Magistrate that this Court thinks that there is a case to go to a jury, or that he thereby is in any way relieved from his duty of considering whether the accused ought to be committed for trial or not. This view is not at all inconsistent with the duty of this Court to refuse Section, if it is clearly of opinion, on the evidence before it, that no reasonable jury should convict.3. There is one matter in the judgment of my brother Coutts Trotter, J., on which I wish to reserve the expression of my view until the matter directly arises, namely, whether the learned Judge was justified in ordering the document in question to be brought into Court on the application for Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Fraser and Ross Vs. Krishnaswami Aiyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad144; (1924)ILR47Mad47
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, of the Receivers appointed by the High Court in Civil Suit No. 655 of 1921 to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to make the petitioners parties to execution proceedings pending before him (Execution Application No. 130 of 1922). This petition came up for admission on 1st May 1922 with an application for stay of proceedings. As the contesting respondent appeared in Court and offered to take notice, I directed the petition to be heard on 3rd May 1922.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 111 of 1916 on the file of the Kumbakonam Subordinate Judge's Court obtained a decree on a simple mortgage bond against the members of the well-known Nadar family of Tanjore on 12th April 1917, and on 13th September 1920 a final decree was passed in the suit and on 7th November 1921 an order for sale was made. The sale was fixed for 30th January 1922 and it was adjou...
Tag this Judgment!Virappa Chettiar Vs. Kathayee Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad180; 71Ind.Cas.112
ORDERRamesam, J.1. There is no finding by the Magistrate that any party was in possession before the locking of the building by the counter-, petitioners. Nor could he give such a finding, as there were no materials which could properly be the basis of such a finding as no enquiry was made. It is the duty of the Magistrate to complete the enquiry under, Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the proceedings started under it and a preliminary order passed see Velayuda Kone v. Narayana Kone 31 Ind. Cas. 645 : 2 L.W. 1208 : 16 Cr. L.J. 789, and the cases cited therein]. If the petitioner was not ready with his evidence, and showed no good cause for an adjournment, the Magistrate ought, at least, to have taken the evidence of the counter-petitioners. The order of the Magistrate is vacated and the case will be sent back to be disposed of according to law. It will be open to the petitioner also to file a written statement and to adduce evidence at the new enquiry and the Magistrate wi...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Munuswamy Mudaliar Vs. Rajaratnam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.340
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgments of my learned brothers who are more familiar with the practice of this Court than I am and with those judgments in general I agree. I have little to add.2. I think it should be made clear that the fact that this Court sanctions a prosecution, is no intimation to the Magistrate that this Court thinks that there is a case to go to a Jury or that he thereby is in any way relieved from his duty of considering whether the accused ought to be committed for trial or not. This view is not at all inconsistent with the duty of this Court to refuse sanction, if it is clearly of opinion, on the evidence-before it, that no reasonable Jury should convict.3. There is one matter in the judgment of my brother Coutts-Trotter, J., on which I wish to reserve the expression of my view until the matter directly arises, namely, whether the learned Judge was justified in ordering the document in question to be brought into Court on the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Court Fees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad257
Schwabe, C.J.1. The question to be decided in this case is whether on a proper interpretation of the notification contained in the Fort St. George Gazette of May 5th, 1922, the rules imposing increased institution fees on suits on the Original Side of this Court apply the new scale to suits instituted on that day or not. The words of the notification are 'that the amendments do come into force from the date of publication in the Fort St, George Gazette,' and the whole question is whether those words mean on and after that date, including May the 5fch, or after that date excluding May the 5th.2. The matter has been most fairly and dearly argued by the Advocate General for the Grown and Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar for the litigants, and I have also had the opportunity of studying and considering the judgments of my brothers, who take different views on this matter. I approach this matter conscious of the salutary rule that, in all statutes imposing taxation, any real ambiguity must be de...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Erada Padinharedil Govindan Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ396
ORDER1. This is a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by two persons undergoing a sentence of 18 months for alleged participation in the Moplah rebellion. They were charged with rioting under Section 147 I P.C. an offence cognisable by the ordinary Courts. It was alleged that they had assisted the rebels in destroying a bridge. This they admitted, but stated that they were compelled to do so under threat of death. They alleged, owing to the trial being summary and taking place away from the scene of action and far from their homes, they were not in a position to substantiate this defence by evidence which they could have called if the trial had taken place under the ordinary law and in its proper place.2. It is admitted that they were tried by a summary Magistrate appointed under Ordinance II of 1921 who held his Court at a place outside the area in which Martial Law was proclaimed, the alleged offence having been committed inside such area. Acting under the powers conferred by Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »