Chennai Court February 1924 Judgments
Mollaya Padayachi and anr. Vs. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad95; 85Ind.Cas.855; (1924)47MLJ622
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The 4th and 5th defendants are the appellants.2. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6,669- I-O with costs and further interest due on a deed of mortgage dated the 27th of January, 1916 executed by the 1st defendant in his favour for Rs. 5,500 with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. It is alleged that the amount was repayable within the 27th of January, 1917, and that, in default of payment, interest at 12 per cent. was chargeable from the date of the bond and was to be added to the principal with annual rests.3. The 1st defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The case for the plaintiff is that the mortgaged properties belong to Murugayee, the mother of the 1st defendant and the wife of the 2nd defendant, that Murugayee who died on the 7th January, 1916, executed a will, dated the 2nd of April, 1914, whereby she bequeathed the properties to the 1st defendant, that the 1st defendant became the exclusive owner of the properties, that in execution of the decree i...
Tag this Judgment!Sandattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar Avo Vs. Veerappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.968
1. All these petitions relate to suits filed by tenants against the landlord for commutation of grain rents into money rents. The Deputy Collector allowed this commutation and fixed the rate at which it was to be made. The landlord appealed to the District Judge on the ground that the rate fixed was too low and he calculated the value of the relief sought at the difference between the amount fixed by the Deputy Collector and the amount which he alleged to be correct and paid ad valorem fees on that amount. The District Judge has held that this is not correct but that a fee of Rs. 10 should be paid on each appeal under Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act, clattse 17 (6), holding that it is a suit where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. Now the petitioner applies to have the order of the District Judge set aside.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Government Pleader that no rev...
Tag this Judgment!Sivapatha Mudaliar Vs. S.K. Abdul Razak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad815; (1924)47MLJ199
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, did the accused commit an offence under Section 54(b)(ii) of the Madras Act V of 1920 It enacts : ' Every person who publishes statements which he knows to be false and which materially affect a candidate or his election shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months.'2. The statement which the accused is alleged to have made is this:-' P.W. I, i.e., the complainant, failed in getting elected in his own place and had come to Saidapet expecting to be elected.' For deciding whether this statement materially affects the candidate or his election, I have first to consider the nature of the statement itself. I fail to see what bearing this statement can have upon the result of the election. If the complainant had in truth been defeated at a previous election held at another place, it does not follow that he will meet with defeat at the subsequent contest.3. The second point to be considered is, whether, the persons to...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ramanathan Chettiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. M.G. Mohideen Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad836; (1924)47MLJ428
Phillips, J.1. In this case the appellant is decree-holder in O.S. No. 428 of 1907 in the Madras City Civil Court. He attempted to execute the decree on several occasions in 1911, 1914, 1917 and finally just as the decree was about to be barred by limitation, he filed the present petition E.P. No. 152 of 1920., In that he asked for the arrest of the judgment-debtor and also for the appointment of a Receiver in order to collect a debt due to the judgment-debtor. The arrest was ordered and apparently batta was paid for this arrest on five different occasions but on no occasion was the debtor found. Meanwhile an order had been made appointing a Receiver for the collection of the debt. After these many attempts at arrest had failed, the petition was rejected on the 29th of October, 1920 but it was restored to file on the 2nd of December, 1920 so far as the application for the appointment of Receiver was concerned, but the Judge refused to issue any further warrants for arrest. An appeal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Chittambala Mudaliar Vs. Parthasarathy Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad194; 84Ind.Cas.905; (1924)47MLJ801
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff is one of the executors of the will of one Ramanuja Mudaliar, a Hindu, who died on the 21st October, 1913. The defendants are the sons of Ramanuja Mudaliar. The plaint allegations are that the testator bequeathed the properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint to charity, that the executors applied for probate of the will in T. O.S. No. 2 of 1914 and the defendants entered a caveat and contended that the will was brought about by undue, influence and was invalid, that they (defendants) filed C.S. No. 103 of 1914, for a declaration that the property was joint family property and that the testator Ramanuja Mudaliar, who was a member of the joint family, could not dispose of the property of the joint family by will, that both T. O.S. No. 2 of 1914 and C.S. No. 103 of 1914 were compromised and a razinamah was entered into between the executors and the defendants on 20th October, 1914, as a result of which two of the items were left for charity and the o...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundara Bhattar Vs. Muthu thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad188
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 129 of 1922 Madura Sub-Court. He sued to set aside a sale-deed alleging inter alia that 2nd defendant took advantage of his youth.The plaintiff has just attained his majority and the defendants have in collusion cheated him.2. After filing this plaint, he had reason to believe that he was a minor at the time of the sale, and applied for leave to amend his plaint accordingly.3. Leave has been refused by the Additional Subordinate Judge in the order appealed against, dated 11th April, 1923, on the grounds that the application was not bona fide and that amendment could not be allowed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There was two months' delay between plaintiff's learning his age and making this application, but I do not think that this interval suggests want of good faith.4. The real question is, whether the amendment is such a variation of the original cause of action as to preclude a permission to amend u...
Tag this Judgment!Rangayya Vs. Somappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad367
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts as set forth in the charge do undoubtedly constitute an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Objection to jurisdiction was taken by the accused on the ground that the offence was not cognisable by a Second Glass Magistrate and the objection was again pressed in appeal. It was overruled, the reason given being that there is no distinction between Sections 417 and 420. This is of course clearly wrong. Section 415 defines cheating. It consists of two parts : (1) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver any property or to consent that any property shall be retained; (2) intentionally inducing the person deceived to do or omit to do anything which be would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, if the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.2. Section 417 deals with cheating generally; but Section 420 deals with that species of cheating...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.G. Moideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.731
1. In this case the appellant is a decree-holder in O.S. No. 423 of 1907 in the Madras City Civil Court. He attempted to execute the decree on several occasions in 1911, 1914, 1917 and finally, just as the decree was about to be barred by limitation, he filed the present petition E.P. No. 162 of 1920. In that he asked for the arrest of the judgment-debtor and also for the appointment of a Receiver in order to collect a debt due to the judgment-debtor. The arrest was ordered and apparently batta was paid for this arrest on five different occasions, but on no occasion was the debtor found. Meanwhile, an order had been made appointing a Receiver for the collection of the debt. After these many attempts at arrest had failed, the petition was rejected on the 29th of October 1920 but it was restored to tile on the 2nd December 1920 so far as the application for the appointment of Receiver was concerned, but the Judge refused to issue any further warrants for arrest. An appeal was made agains...
Tag this Judgment!Harihara Aiyar Vs. Ukkandan Variar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad207
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the appellant is the legal representative of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was holding certain lands on a kanom demise under the Eravaimangalam Devaswom in South Malabar. The 1st plaintiff obtained a melcharth and brought the suit to redeem the kanom on the strength of the melcharth.2. The only plea raised against the plaintiff is that his melcharth is not a valid melcharth. This devaswom is represented by three uralans belonging to three Namburdi Moms in South Malabar. The melcharth was granted by two uralans, as to whose position as uralans there is no dispute, and by the 6th defendant, who is not the senior-most member of the melazhiath illom, one of the Moms in which the uraima right is vested, but is only the second man in the Mom. The eldest man now living, in that Mom is D.W. No. 1.2. It is contended by the kanomdar that as the eldest man was not consulted in granting the melcharth, it should be held to be not valid and binding on the trust, a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mustafa Rowther Vs. Shanmuga thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad375; 83Ind.Cas.349
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The accused are alleged to have cub open the bund of a tank belonging to a mosque of which the complainant is the trustee. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tinnevelly found the accused guilty and passed a sentence of fine. An appeal was filed before the District Magistrate and he transferred it to the Joint Magistrate of Shermadevi. He reversed the conviction and this criminal revision case has been filed by the complainant. The chief ground on which the order of acquittal is attacked is that the notice mentioned in Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not served on the officer mentioned in that section. Notice was ordered to the complainant but for some reason or other it was not served upon him. No notice was ordered to the District Magistrate. Section 422 provides that notice shall be given to such officer as the local Government may appoint in that behalf and under Rule 60 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the officer appointed is the District...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »