Chennai Court March 1923 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.
Sri Rajah Bommadevasa Satyanarayana Varaprasada Rao Bahadur, Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad45; 73Ind.Cas.948
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Kistna dismissing a petition by the zemindar of South Vallur, headed as under the Guardians and Wards Act. It is not clear what was the particular provision of the Act the petitioner desired to proceed under, not it clear why the learned District Judge said the petitioner was proceeding under Section 7 of that Act. The first proper in the petition is that the petitioner or some other lit and proper person shall be appointed guardian of the infant and the second which is at present material is that the infant snail be removed from the custody of the respondent and placed in charge of a guardian to be appointed. It does not seem to have been recognised by those concerned that the relief which a father can appropriately claim is under Section 7, or under Section 25 not under Section 19, which has also been referred to before us The two first mentioned deal with the appointment of or declaration of a guardian, but the last app...
Daroga Muhammad Ghouse Sahib Vs. Shaik Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.985; (1923)45MLJ66
Krishnan, J.1. It is argued that the Presidency Small Cause Courts had no jurisdiction to remove the obstruction by the petitioner. I am unable to accept this argument. It is clear Section 48 of the Small Cause Courts Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under Chapter VII and the language of it is wide enough to include a power to act under Order 21 Rule 98 Civil Procedure Code. A similar view was taken in the case a reported in Bagimall v. Appadurai Gramany (1909) 7 M.L.T. 385 : 6 I.C. 722. To hold otherwise would lead to the extraordinary result that though the Small Cause Court can pass an order in ejectment against a tenant its order could be defeated by the tenant giving over possession to a third party a day previous to the date fixed for ejectment. The Small Cause Court has power to remove any improper obstruction to the carrying out of its own order.2. It was next contended that this was not a proper case to direct removal of obstruction as p...
Mahomed Ghouse Sahib Vs. Shaik Mohiden Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad74
Krishnan, J.1. It is argued that the Presidency Small Cause Courts had no jurisdiction to remove the obstruction by the petitioner. I am unable to accept this argument. It is clear Section 48 of the Small Cause Courts Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under chapter VII and the language of it is wide enough to include a power fact under Order 21 Rule 98 Civil Procedure Code. A similar view was taken in the case as reported in Bagimall v. Appadurai Gramany [1910] 7 M.l.T. 385. To hold otherwise would lead to the extraordinary result that, though Small Cause Court can pass an order in ejectment against a tenant, its order could be defeated by the tenant giving over possession to a third party a day previous to the date fixed for ejectment. The Small Cause Court has power to remove any improper obstruction to the carrying out of its own order.2. It was next contended that this was not a proper case to direct removal of obstruction as petitioner claims...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›