Chennai Court April 1923 Judgments
Venkatarama Iyer Vs. Subramania Sastry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.37
1. This appeal is by the 117th defendant and it is opposed mainly by the 22nd defendant. The hearing has taken a considerable time, but the issues, now that the facts are ascertained, are clear.2. The suit was brought for the partition of the Samudayam land of a village in the Tanjore district, the Samudayam tenure, as explained in the District Manual, being a holding in common by the village community known as the mirasidars. It is not disputed that the land, of which partition is claimed, was and is Samudayam land; nor has any serious attempt been made to dispute here that it has never been divided and that it is now particle. On this point it may be observed that the 22nd defendant no doubt set up a previous partition in his written statement; but it is clear that the matter is res judicata against him in consequence of Exhibits T.A. and R, the judgments in O.S. No. 367 of 1900. The lower Appellate Court held that the parties before it had established their rights to a certain numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Janoo Hassan by His Agent Ahmad Esa Vs. Batchu Kamandu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad158; 76Ind.Cas.752; (1923)45MLJ471
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J. dismissing an application by the defendant that the plaint filed herein should be rejected or the suit dismissed on the ground that the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The question turns on the proper interpretation of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which gives the High Court jurisdiction 'if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain ' within the limits of Madras. Here, the whole cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction, and the defendant lives outside the jurisdiction, does not personally work for gain within the jurisdiction, but carries on business through an agent within the jurisdiction. The question to be determined is whether 'carrying on business' includes carrying on business through an agent. It is argued that it does only in the case of British Subjects and not in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ram Vilas Nidhi Ld. Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad328
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment my learned brother is about to deliver.Devadoss, J.2. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore setting aside, under 8. 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, a mortgage in favour of the appellant by the insolvent.3. The facts of the ease are : One Sama Naicken who was a trader became involved in debt. On the 7th November 1918 he executed an hypothecation deed in favour of the appellant which is a Bank called Sri Janaki Rama Vilasa Nidhi for RS. 6,000 the consideration for the document being Rs. 2,000, due to the B ink itself, Rs. 2,000 for paying Rima Vilas Nidhi of Pappanaiekenpalayam, Piathur, and Rs. 1.000 to Idigarai Devalaya Paripalana Nidhi and Rs. 973-8-0 principal and interest due to one Kasturi Naicken, and Rs. 26-1-0 received by the mortgagor in cash. Sama Naicken, the insolvent, according to the Schedule filed by him, was indebted to the extent of Rs. 38,000 at the time of the execution of the mortgage-deed E...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Marda Raj Deo Garu Vs. Tumbanatha Behara and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.730
Krishnan, J.1. These are revision petitions arising from a mister of small cause suits filed by the zemindar of Kail kotta against various Inamdars holding lands in the zemin village of Mardakota, for kaitubadi and land Cess alleged to be due. The Zemindar's case is that the inams were granted for Paik's service by one of his predecessors-in-title with a condition attached that each inamdar was to pay to the zemindar a kattnb,idi equal to 1/4 of the Rajabhogam or the total income of the inamdars from the lands. The defendants in the various suits pleaded inter alia that they were not liable to pay kattubadi separately as claimed but were only liable as a body to pay a lump sum of Rs. 53 for it every fasli. They, also pleaded that the grant was absolute and not burdened with any service; but that question did not arise for decision in these suits'. There is also no question raised before me about, the liability for land cess. The District Munsif. found on the' evidence that the inamdars...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Rao Vs. Rengasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad326; 76Ind.Cas.789
1. This second appeal turns solely on the question whether the order of the Board of Revenue contained in Exhibit F is or is not ultra vires. We think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct. The grant of the land to the appellant was made specifically liable to cancellation if it were found that it was made owing to misrepresentation, fraud, etc., and Section 17 of the Board's Standing Order No. 15 provides that nothing contained in that paragraph (whereby the order of the appellate authority is made final) should limit the power of the Board of Revenue to set aside, cancel or amend any decision in a darkhast case on being satisfied that the decision exceeded the powers conveyed by the Standing Orders to the person making the order, or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation or fraud. It is true that the order, Exhibit F, does not set out any reasons, but it was passed on allegations which are contained in Exhibit E and these allegati...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Mardaraj Deo Garu, Zamindar of Kallikota Vs. Tumbanatha Be ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad480
Krishnan, J. 1. These are revision petitions arising from a mister of small cause suits filed by the zemindar of Kail kotta against various Inamdars holding lands in the zemin village of Mardakota, for kaitubadi and land Cess alleged to be due. The Zemindar's case is that the inams were granted for Paik's service by one of his predecessors-in-title with a condition attached that each inamdar was to pay to the zemindar a kattnb,idi equal to 1/4 of the Rajabhogam or the total income of the inamdars from the lands. The defendants in the various suits pleaded inter alia that they were not liable to pay kattubadi separately as claimed but were only liable as a body to pay a lump sum of Rs. 53 for it every fasli. They, also pleaded that the grant was absolute and not burdened with any service; but that question did not arise for decision in these suits'. There is also no question raised before me about, the liability for land cess. The District Munsif. found on the' evidence that the inamdar...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dharam Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ230
ORDER1. This case raises the same point as Criminal Revision Case No. 691, (1) the only difference being that it was tried summarily under Chapter XXII. In our judgment, there is no difference between summary trials of summons cases and the ordinary trials of summons cases. This petition must be dismissed. The sentence is light but in the circumstances as he has already been released and only has a few more days to serve we reduce the sentence to 11 days....
Tag this Judgment!Konthalathammal and Vs. Soundarathachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ481
Oldfield, J.1. The first and important of the two orders before us was passed by the District Judge of South Arcot on a petition for the removal of 1st respondent from her position as testamentary guardian of the person and property of a minor Thirugnanavalli Ammal, for the appointment of the petitioner, or any other fit person in her stead and for connected reliefs. Against that order there is an appeal by the petitioner and also a revision petition.2. I deal first with the respondent's preliminary objection to the appeal, that this order, consisting in a refusal to remove a guardian is not appealable under Section 47 Guardian and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) and is final under Section 48. The order, as it stands, is certainly of that character, its conclusion being that the Court is not prepared to remove the guardian on any of the grounds stated in the petition and that the petition is dismissed; and the objection is supported by authority which I am prepared to follow, Mohima Chunder B...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveribai Ammal by Agent S.L. Narayana Rao Vs. B. Mehta and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ71
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J. sitting on the original side refusing the application by Judge's summons to alter the price fixed as the upset price in the proclamation of sale, to alter the mode of selling of certain part of the property into a sale as a whole and to postpone the date of the sale.2. The suit was a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree gave what seems to be a short time of three months for redeeming. That time having elapsed, no application having been made for extension of the time and no appeal having been taken from the preliminary decree, a final decree was passed ordering a sale. The Court then directed the sale on a certain day and in the ordinary way under Order 21, Rule 66 caused a proclamation to be drawn up. Thereafter this summons was taken out and the learned Judge having dismissed it, this appeal is brought to this Court; and the question is whether such an appeal lies.3. Under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.959
ORDER1. This case raises the same point as Criminal Revision Case No. 691 Pages 945 of this Vol, ante.-Ed the only difference being that it was tried summarily under Chapter XXII. In our judgment, there is no difference between sammary trials of summons-cases and the ordinary trials of summons cases. This petition must be dismissed. The sentence is light but, in the, circumstances, as he has already been released and only his a few more days to serve, we reduce the sentence to 11 days....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »