Chennai Court February 1924 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.
Kallepalli Rajilagiripathy Vs. Kallepalli Bhavani Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.103
1. This appeal relates to the execution of a decree, dated 27th April 1918. On 26th April 1919 the transferee decree-holders applied for recognition of their transfer and for execution. However, in consequence of an attachment of the decree this petition was dismissed. The next petition was put in on 4-4-1922 asking for the transmission of the decree to the District Court for execution, and on 26-4-1922 the present execution petition was filed. It was contended that the present petition was barred by limitation, but four grounds were urged by the decree-holder for allowing execution. The District Judge has held that two of these grounds were valid and has ordered execution to proceed. Now, this appeal is filed by the 1st defendant, the judgment-debtor.2. The first ground taken is that the plea of limitation is res judicata by reason of the order on the application of 4-4-1922 directing the transmission of the decree to the District Court. It has been held in the Calcutta Court in Sreep...
In Re: (Saiyed) Anif Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad993; 85Ind.Cas.727
Spencer, J.1. This criminal revision case originated in a reference made by the District Magistrate, Trichinopoly, under Section 438(1), Cr.P.C. recommending an enhancement of the sentences which-were reduced in consequence of the appeal of the accused to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Their appeal was decided on August 10th, 1923. A revision petition (Cr.R.C. No. 561 of 1923) against their conviction was presented to this Court by Mr. V.L. Ethiraj and was dismissed by Mr. Justice Krishnan on 15th August, 1923, without giving notice to the Public Prosecutor.2. Dr. Swaminadhan took the preliminary objection to our proceeding to hear the present criminal revision case, that this Court having already disposed of a revision petition in respect of the same criminal case is functus officio and cannot re-open the matter. In other words he argued that the High Court has no power of revision over the criminal proceedings of inferior Courts. He referred to Section 369, Cr.P.C. and to In re Runga...
Yadavendra Bhatta Vs. Srinivasa Babhu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad62; (1924)47MLJ435
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The second defendant executed a mortgage in favour of the first defendant. Out of the consideration, a small balance was not paid. The, plaintiff sues for the recovery of that balance on the strength of an assignment made by the third defendant who himself had obtained a similar assignment from the second defendant. The first defendant pleaded that the balance was payable only on the performance of a certain condition. The lower appellate Court has clearly found that the second defendant made default and that the condition was not fulfilled. On this finding, the plaintiff can have no decree. Apart from this circumstance, it is perfectly clear on the authorities cited, Anakaran Kasmi v. Saidamadath Avullah I.L.R. (1879) M 79, Rajayopala Aiyar v. Sheik Davood Rowther (1917) 34 MLJ 342 and Sheik Galim v. Sadarjan Bibi I.L.R. (1915) C 59., that the present suit is a suit to enforce an agreement to lend money on a mortgage and that such a suit does not lie. In Anakara...
Areti Subbayya Vs. Sree Raja Venkataramiah Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.718; (1924)47MLJ469
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the point taken before me is that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant mesne profits in the way the lower Courts have done as the plaintiff is entitled only to such profits as can be claimed under Clause 2 of Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land Act under which mesne profits have to be ascertained by the Collector under Section 45, and reliance is placed upon the ruling in Kotikalapudi Kattayya v. Sree Rajah Venkataramayya Row Bahadur : (1920)39MLJ571 . If the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of both the lower Courts is that this land is not ryoti land because it is not ordinarily cultivable. The learned appellate Judge says that it is a sort of waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all. On that finding Section 163 will not apply and there will be no ground for objecting to the Civil Courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. It is, however, contended before m...
Gothipati Suryanarayana Vs. Sree Raja Ankineed Prasad Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ565
Spencer, J.1. An objection has been taken that the Magistrate acted illegally in dropping proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on being satisfied that no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.2. It is argued that he was bound to record the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner, who might have shown by evidence that a dispute still existed, and that he should not have acted on the petition of the niece of the Zamindar who stated that she had compromised the matter in dispute between herself and the Zamindar who is the 1st Counter-petitioner.3. In Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Barada Kanta Chowdhury ILR 30 C 112 it was held that whatever the source of the Magistrate's information he might act upon it if he was satisfied that the state of things which alone would have given him jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry no longer existed and in another case in the same volume at page 161 it was pointed out that Section 145 (5) gives even third parties who ...
Palani Nayakkan and ors. Vs. Parvati Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad291
Krishnan, J.1. Two point are taken before mo in this second appeal. The first point is that the defendants have acquired a title to permanent occupancy right by adverse possession since 1903 by denying the landlord's title and by not paying rent to him; and secondly, that the land is ryoti land and by the passing of the Estatss Land Act in 1908, the defendants have acquired occupancy right in the land by the virtue of Section 6 of the Act. Both these points have been fotfad against the defendants. On the first point, the learned District Judge has held that the decision in the previous suit between the parties for a declaration that the defendants had no occupancy right in the land, put an end to any claims that they might have had by reason of their possession. He holds that even assuming that that possession was adverse, the previous possession during the coursa of that litigation which ended in 1908 could not be added on to their subsequent possession to acquire a title by 12 years'...
Periasami Muthirian and anr. Vs. Anandayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.82
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was by plaintiff for a declaration that the plaint nanja land belongs to her and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with her enjoyment. It was admitted that the melwaram in the land belongs to plaintiff. 1st defendant claimed that he owns the hudivaram. The first Court decreed the suit and the lower Appellate Court concurred. Defendants appeal.2. The first point taken is that there is no evidence on which the lower Court's findings that plaintiff has title to the land can be based. This, I think, must be allowed. Ex. C the inam register does not make a definite statement as to the particular details of the grant. Exs. A and B are only comparatively recent title-deeds and do not recite that the kudivaram was sold. The mere fact that they are more than 30 years old, and purport to have been attested by one Kathaperumal, paternal uncle of 1st defendant, cannot be any evidence that the kudivaram also was sold. There is no other ...
Periasami Muthiriyan and anr. Vs. Anandayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad722
Wallace, J.1. The Original Suit was by plaintiff for a declaration that the plaint nanja land belongs to her and for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering with her enjoyment. It was admitted that the melwaram in the land belongs to plaintiff. First defendant claimed that he owns the kudivaram. The first Court decreed the suit and the Lower Appellate Court concurred. Defendants appeal.2. The first point taken is that there is no evidence on which the Lower Courts' findings that the plaintiff has title to the land can be based. This, I think, must be allowed. Ex. C, the inam register, does not make a definite statement as to the particular details of the grant. Exs. A and B are only comparatively recent title deeds and do not recite that the Kudivaram was sold. The mere fact that they are more than 3 years old, and purport to have been attested by one Kathaperumal, paternal uncle of first defendant, cannot be any evidence that the kudivaram also was sold. There is...
Gothipathi Suryanarayana Vs. Sree Raja Aukeneed Prad Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.626
Spencer, J.1. An objection has been taken that the Magistrate acted illegally in dropping, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on being satisfied that no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.2. It is argued that he was bound to record the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner, who might have shown by evidence that a dispute still existed and that he should not have acted on the petition of the niece of the zemindar who stated that she had compromised the matter in dispute between herself and the zemindar who is the 1st counter-petitioner.3. In Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Barada Kanta Chowdhury 30 C. 112 : 6 C.W.N. 417 it was held that whatever the source of the Magistrate's information, he might act upon it if he was saisfied that the state of things which alone would have given him jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry no longer existed, and in another case, Krishna Kamini v. Abdul Jubbar 30 C. 155 : 6 C.W.N. 737 (F.B.), it was pointed out t...
A. Subbayya Vs. Sree Raja Venkataramiah Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad832
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the point taken before me is that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant, mesne profits in the way the lower Courts have done as the plaintiffs are entitled only to such profits-as can be claimed under Clause 2 of Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land Act under which insane profits have to be ascertained by the Collector under Section 45, and reliance is placed upon the ruling in Kotikalapudi Rattayya v. Venkataramayya Appa Rao : (1920)39MLJ571 , if the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of both the lower Courts is that this land is not ryoti laiid because, it is not ordinarily cultivable. The learned appellate judge says that it is a sort of waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all On that finding Section 163 will not apply and there will be no ground for objecting to the Civil Courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. It is however contended before me that as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »