Chennai Court February 1923 Judgments
Srirangam Municipal Council Reprsented by Its Chairman K. Singam Aiyan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad162; (1923)45MLJ164
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the defendant bought in auctionthe right to collect fees or tolls for slaughtering cattle in the slaughter-house of the plaintiff Corporation. This suit is for the balance money due from him. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that no written contract was executed as required by Section 45 of the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 which was in force. It is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year.2. There is no doubt a conflict of authority on the point. So far as the English Law is concerned it must now be taken as settled by Lawford v. Bellericay Rural Council (1903) 1 K.B. 772 in favour of such decrees being given. The learned Judges refer to Young and Co. v. Mayor etc., of Royal Leamington, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kenath Puthen Veettil Koppassa Menon Kenath Achan Avergal Vs. Karumath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad700; (1923)45MLJ258
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows : A previous karnavan of the plaintiff's tarwad granted a kanom of Rs. 12,000 and odd to one Thappan Nayar on the nth May 1896 and subsequently on the 30th of June 1902 executed a puramkadam deed for Rs. 1,350, under which the original term of 12 years granted in 1896 was extended for another 12 years from 1908. Thappan Nayar was, accordingly, entitled to hold the property until 1920. Subsequently, Thappan Nayar transferred Rs. 6,000 of the kanom to defendants 1 to 3, the 1st defendant being the wife of Raman Nayar and the daughter of Thappan Nayar. The remainder of the kanom passed to Raman Nayar, the husband of the 1st defendant. In 1914 the 10th defendant, who had then become the karnavan, executed two demises one in ravour of Raman Nayar and one in favour of defendants 1 to 3. These demises renewed the existing tenure for a period of 12 years from their date, namely, until 1926. The plaintiff, the the senior anandravan of the tar...
Tag this Judgment!Kenath Puthen Veetil Koppassa Menon Kenath Achan Avergal Vs. Karumathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.476
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are as follow: A previous karnavan of the plaintiff's tarwad granted a kanom of Rs. 12,000 and odd to one Thappan Nair on the 11th of May 1896 and subsequently on the 30th of June 1902 executed a puramkanom deed for Rs. 1,350 under which the original term of 12 years granted in 1896 was extended for another 12 years from 1908. Thappan Nair was, accordingly, entitled to hold the property until 1920. Subsequently Thappan Nair transferred Rs. 6,000 of the kanom to defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the first defendant being the wife of Raman Nair and the daughter of Thappan Nair. The remainder of the kanom passed to Raman Nair, the husband of the first defendant. In 1914 the 10th defendant, who had then become the karnavan, executed two demises one in favour of Raman Nair and one in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. These demises renewed the existing tenure for a period of 12 years from their date, namely, until 1926. The plaintiff, the senior anandtavan of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bolimati Murigadu and ors. Vs. Nalla Bapadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.946
Krishnan, J.1. The order of the District Munsif is clearly opposed to the ruling in Govindasami Pillai v. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam 45 Ind. Cas. 95 : 41 M. 620 : 34 M.L.J 399. The learned Munsif has found that the petitioners are paupers but has travelled beyond the four corners of the plaint and relied on evidence to hold that the petitioners have 'no cause of action.' The plaint certainly discloses a cause of action and it was not open to the Court to go beyond it and. come to a finding which, in reality, is a finding that the petitioners are not likely to succeed en the cause of action alleged. The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside and the petitioners are given leave to sue in forma pauperis. Costs will abide and follow the result of the suit....
Tag this Judgment!Polimati Mungadu and ors. Vs. Nalla Bapadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad80
Krishnan, J.1. The order of the District Munsif is clearly opposed to the ruling in Govindasamy Pillai v. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam [1918] 41 Mad. 620. The learned Munsif has found that the petitioners are paupers, but has travelled beyond the four corners of the plaint and relied on evidence to hold that the petitioners have 'no cause of action'. The plaint certainly discloses a cause of action; and it was not open to the Court to go beyond it and come to a finding which, in reality, is a finding that the petitioners are not likely to succeed on the cause of action alleged. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Lower Court is set aside; and the petitioners are given leave to sue in forma pauperis. Costs will abide and follow the result of the suit....
Tag this Judgment!Viswanatha Asari Vs. Sami Asari Alias Maghasaya Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.982
Odgers, J.1. In this case it is contended that the order of the Sub-Judge is wrong in that it disposed of the suit on the merits whereas, as the plaintiff was absent, he ought to have proceeded under Order XVII, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, in dismissing 'the case for default instead of under Order XVII, Rule 3. As against this, it appears that the plaintiff was not absent but was represented by the Pleader who asked for an adjournment which was refused. Patinhare Tarkatt Rama Mannadi v. Vellur Krishnan Menon 26 M. 267 is authority for the proposition that in such a case the suit cannot be dismissed for default but a judgment must be written and the case disposed of. No authority is cited to the contrary. It is further contended that no revision lies, as this is not an ex parte decree, but the remedy of the petitioner is to proceed by way of appeal from the decree against him. The petition cannot, therefore, be brought against the order refusing restoration of the suit on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Yalavarty Ankanna Vs. Pillameri Adribhotlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.528
ORDERSpencer, J.1. There is no appeal or petition pending in this Court in this connection. This is not a cast for the exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 107 of the Government of India Act. The petitioner may apply under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Sub-Magistrate to postpone the trial before him pending: the decision of the Civil Court, and if he fails to get a reasonable order and he may then, ask this Court to revise the order so passed, the petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Y. Ankamma Vs. P. Adribhotlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad235
ORDERSpencer, J.1. There is no appeal or petition pending in this Court in this connection. This is not a case for the exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court, under Section 107 of the Government of India Act.2. The petitioners may apply under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Sub-Magistrate to postpone the trial before him, pending the decision of the civil Court, and if he fails to get a reasonable order, he may then ask this Court to revise the order so passed. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Karri Bapanna and anr. Vs. Sunkari Yerramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad718; (1923)45MLJ324
Oldfield, J.1. The order appealed against is one of remand. The question was whether, as the eleventh defendant alleged, a previous decree was invalid, because it had been obtained owing to the negligence of her then guardian. The first objection to this order of remand is that the plea of negligence was untenable in as much as, if the eleventh defendant wished to plead that she was not bound by the previous judgment she should have brought a regular suit to have it set aside. That does not appear to be in accordance with Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act or the construction of that provision in Rajib Panda v. Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra I.L.R. (1900) Cal. 11. It is urged that Section 44 is not applicable when the previous judgment has been obtained owing to gross negligence; and it is true that only fraud or collusion and not gross negligence is mentioned in it. We do not however think that the principle involved is inapplicable to cases of gross negligence. It may be observed that suc...
Tag this Judgment!Dronadula Sriramulu Vs. Ponakavira Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad641; (1923)45MLJ105
Oldfield, J.1. In concurring in the order which my learned brother proposes, I do not desire to follow him further than is necessary to support his conclusion.2. The decision under appeal is in terms that the District Munsif erred in removing the name of the 5th creditor, here respondent, from the list of creditors; and we have to con sider whether he had power to do this and if so, whether we ran accept the order made in the exercise of that power. By an irregular and confused course of procedure and pleading, to which my learned brother has referred, that order involved the conclusion, not only that 5th creditor's debt was not proveable in the insolvency, but also that the mortgage se curing it was invalid. The objection thus allowed was taken as follows in a counter-petition of 1st creditor : 'The mort gage for Rs. 500 said to have been executed by petitioner (the insolvent) and his father in favour of 5th creditor was created for the benefit of the insolvent and with the intention ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »