Chennai Court February 1923 Judgments
Alagu Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Veluchami Alias Mayilappa Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad576; (1923)45MLJ76
1. In this case a suit was referred to arbitration-three arbitrators being appointed. As two of the arbitrators were absent the parties agreed to abide by the decision of the third alone. He was accordingly requested to decide this suit and other matters. He gave his decision so far as this suit is concerned and deferred his enquiry into other matters, but owing to defendants' obstruction no award was made in those matters. On application the lower Court recorded the award under Order 23 Rule 3. Defendants appeal.2. The greater portion of their argument has been addressed to the plea that as the award was only partial, it is not valid and has referred to Randall v. Randall (1805) 103 E.R. 32 and Bradford v. Byran (1741) 125 E.R. 1167 : Willes 268. An examination of these and other cases on the point i.e., Risden v. Inglet 78 E.R. 1065 , Ormelade v. Coke 79 E.R. 303 , Wrightson v. Bywater (1830) 150 E.R. 1114 : 3 M & W 192 and Simonds v. Swaine 127 E.R. 947 shows that there is no rule o...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Krishna Pillai Vs. Arur Pandithar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad663; 72Ind.Cas.688
Oldfield, J.1. The facts of this case are exceptional and fortunately so; and it is fortunate, further, that there is no dispute about the good faith of the District Munsif concerned, whatever opinion may be formed of the propriety of his conduct.2. The facts are that, on the 29th September 1921, the District Munsif gave a judgment on the present petitioner's claim to draw certain money, the subject of attachment, which was alleged to be due to the judgment-debtor from the Trichinopoly District Board. The District Munsif delivered that judgment orally, dictating it to a shorthand-writer; and there is no dispute that, in substance, whatever the exact words he used may have been, he allowed the petitioner to draw the money in case he got Probate or Succession Certificate or got his rights determined in a separate suit or gave security on unencumbered immoveable property for the amount. This order may be difficult to understand, because it is not of the nature contemplated by Order XXI, R...
Tag this Judgment!P.P.P. Mohammad Kunhi Vs. P.C.V. Packrichi Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.671
1. In calling upon the District Judge to record evidence of a custom or usage prevailing in Malabar of males being excluded from tarwads or tavazhis managed exclusively by females of certain Marumakkattayam Mappillas, we discussed in some detail all the decisions in which such a custom might be said to have been judicially recognised or its recognition refused, and we stated that we regarded them as inconclusive. The District Judge was, therefore, asked to return a finding on such evidence as might be produced before him to prove the existence of the particular custom in question. This he has done, and we agree with him in holding that it is wholly inadequate to prove the prevalence of any custom by which males are treated as having no right to be consulted in the management of the affairs of the tarwad or tavazhi and no right to participate in the income of the tarwad or tavazhi properties. It is not necessary to express any opinion as to the existence of tarwads in which the manager ...
Tag this Judgment!Doonadula Sriramulu Vs. Ponakavira Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.805
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 5th creditor, here respondent, from the list of creditors; and we have to consider whether he had power to do this, and, if so, whether we can accept the order made in the excercise 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 securing it was invalid. The objection thus allowed was taken as follows in a counter-petition of 1st creditor:--'The mortgage 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 of e...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Kunhi Vs. Packrichi Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad28
ORDERSpencer, J.1. In these connected Second Appeals a question of law has been taken whether a course of devolution of property among females to the exclusion of males is unknown in North Malabar and is repugnant to Marumakkattayam. law as followed by Mappillas in that district. The Subordinate Judge and the District Judge who heard the first appeals hare come to different conclusions on the point, and the authorities to which the District Judge refers in his Judgment are neither clear nor uniform.2. In Bivi Umah v. Keloth, Cheriyath Kutti [1910] M.W.N. 693, an instrument of gift which limited the descent of property to the female line was held by Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., to be valid. The learned Judges observe that the gift was of the class known as Strisothu or henumula and created an estate known to Marumakkattayam usage. They quote Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee [1893] 16 Mad. 201, a Full Bench case, which is not however an authority upon the significance and legality of...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnachalam Aiyar Vs. Sivachidambaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.207; (1923)45MLJ703
Odgers, J.1. These are revision petitions against the orders of the District Munsif of Kulittalai. The first is against an order of his striking out defendants 43 to 99 in O.S. No. 596 of 1920 on his file and the second against his dismissal of an application by plaintiffs to join these same defendants on the ground that some of them are setting up permanent rights of occupancy on the lands in their possession and which are in question in the suit.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision petition is competent as an appeal lies and this objection must be disposed of first of all. It will be necessary to examine the plaint in some detail and to see exactly what is claimed in the suit. The plaintiff alleges that the lands in question are samudayam lands in K.T. Vyganallur village consisting of 104 1/4 pangus. These lands are the property of the defendants (1 to 42) in their respective shares. The five heads of chethis (including 2nd plaintiff) are enjoying the said lands on th...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad665; (1923)44MLJ645
1. The question for our determination is whether the period of limitation applicable to these suits, which have been brought to recover amounts alleged to have been illegally collected by Government from the plaintiffs as water-cess on their lands, is one year from the date of payment under Article 16 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act or six months from the date of the distraint of the plaintiff's paddy crop under Section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act (II of 64).2. It is conceded on either side that if the former period applies, the suits are in time, after giving the plaintiffs credit for the time required under Section 80, C.P.C. to give notice of suit to the Government, as allowed by Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, but that if the latter period of limitation is applicable, the suits are out of time. Under Section 2 of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (VII of 1865) arrears of watercess are made recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Section 59...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkatagurunatha Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad597; (1923)45MLJ133
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The act of the accused in dishonestly inducing the complainant to hand over the promissory notes which the accused had pledged with the complainant as security for a loan of Rs. 2,500 by pretending that he required them to collect money from his debtors with the aid of which he would pay cash to the complainant would constitute, if proved, an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is argued that it does not constitute the offence of Criminal breach of trust (Section 406) for which the petitioner has been convicted, for the reason that the promissory notes were his own.3. I am not prepared to hold that it would be impossible under any circumstances for a person to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of his own property. The possession of the promissory notes, even without endorsement in the hands of the person with whom they were pledged, was of some value to the complainant as it gave him control over the accused and sc...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppa Chetty Vs. Paiya Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad32; 73Ind.Cas.956; (1923)45MLJ210
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder against the decision of the lower appellate Court passed at the instance of the judgment-debtor, here respondent and setting aside the decision of the District Munsif of Namakkal that he had jurisdiction to execute the decree.2. The decree was passed on the small cause side and it is urged first that no Second Appeal lies. That objection must be sustained. But we have been asked to treat the appeal as an application in revision. We think that we are entitled to do so. It is contended that the lower appellate Court did not decline jurisdiction or assume jurisdiction which it had not but simply made a mistake in a question of law relating to jurisdiction. That view is not in our opinion correct. The lower appellate Court held that the District Munsif has no jurisdiction to allow execution and it has dismissed the execution application on the ground that it was made to a Court not having jurisdiction. We think that, in doing so, it decli...
Tag this Judgment!Govindu Kaviraj Purohito Vs. Gauranga Saw and ors. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ231
Oldfield, J.1. These are applications to the Court to amend the cause title in a Second Appeal and to excuse the delay in seeking that relief. It will of course be unnecessary to consider the second application, unless the first succeeds. The circumstances, in which the amendment is asked for are that the respondent, whose name is entered in the appeal as presented, died before the presentation. We are now asked to substitute for his name those of his legal representatives. The objection to this is that an appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist. Order 1, Rule 10 is relied on, but we do not see our way to apply it here since it refers only to suits instituted in the name of a wrong person, and we do not think that it is applicable to a case, such as the present. The power conferred by Section 153 is general, but again we do not think we ought to use it, while another course is open to the petitioner, that course being to file another appeal and to have the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »