Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
V. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. T.V. Sundaram Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1045
1. It has been argued before us that no appeal lies in this case. We are clear that an order of remand in case where the Trial Court has disposed itself of all the issues and given a decree on those findings cannot come within the scope of Order XLI, Rule 23, and that, therefore, no appeal lies. Certain decisions of this Court have been cited before us to the effect that the order of remand must be deemed to have been passed, though improperly passed, under Order XLI, Rule 23 and that therefore an appeal lies, but no decision quoted has the effect of overruling the view we took in a similar case, Muppavarajii Venkata Radhahriskna Rao v. Venthurumilli Venkatarao A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 229 : 48 M.L.J. 713 which we see ho reason at present to abandon. We hold, therefore, that no appeal lies. The appeal against order is dismissed. In the civil revision petition we are confined to the question whether the Subordinate Judge exceeded or improperly exercised his jurisdiction in the order under revis...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu and ors. Vs. Palani Alias Thirumeni thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.535; (1926)50MLJ453
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal raises a novel question. The plaintiff's mother Pechiammal was first married to one Subramania Thevan in September or October, 1903, who divorced her in May or June, 1904. She married again one Thirumeni Thevan in June or July, 1904. The plaintiff was born to her in September, 1904. The plaintiff sues for partition of his one-third share in the property of Thirumeni Thevan. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was the son of Thirumeni Thevan and passed a preliminary decree in his favour. The Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Thirumeni Thevan. Mr. Justice Krishnan set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiff was the son of Thirumeni Trievan. There is evidence in the case to show that Pechiammal did not live with her first husband for any length of time but carried on an intrigue with Thirumeni Thevan in...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Inuganti Venkatarayanim Varu Alias Venkataramayya Garu Vs. W.H. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ716
1. This reference has been necessitated by the judgment of Devadoss, J., in C.S. No. 877 of 1923 sitting on the Original Side of the High Court wherein the learned Judge held that under Order 6(a) of the High Court Rules of Practice a person suing on a negotiable instrument had an option to bring his suit in the ordinary form or under the summary procedure as he liked, the rules in the order, though in form peremptory, being in reality only directory and not mandatory; and that a suit by or against the legal representative of a party to a negotiable instrument and not by or against a party himself should be brought as an ordinary suit and not as a summary suit.2. On both the above points it seems to us with all respect that the learned Judge's views cannot be supported. Rule 62 of Order 6(a) says that theprocedure prescribed by Order 37 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be followed in all suits on negotiable instruments with the modifications mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Ingunti Venkatarayanim Varu Vs. W. H. Nurse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad34
1. This reference has been necessitated by the judgment of Devadoss, J., in C. S. No. 877 of 1923 sitting on the Original Side of the High Court wherein the learned Judge held that under Order 6 (a) of the High Court Rules of Practice a person suing on a negotiable instrument had an option to bring his suit in the ordinary form or under the summary procedure as he liked, the rules in the order, though in form peremptory, being in reality only directory and not mandatory; and that a suit by or against the legal representative of a party to a negotiable instrument and not by or against a party himself should be brought as an ordinary suit and not as a summary suit.2. On both the above points it seems to us with all respect that the learned Judge's views cannot be supported. Rule 62 of Order 6 (a) says that theprocedure prescribed by Order 37 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1.908' shall be followed in all suits on negotiable instruments with the modifications mention...
Tag this Judgment!(Alampath) Krishnan Vs. Municipal Prosecutor Cannanore Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad430
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks to revise the finding and sentence of the Bench Court, Cannanore, fining him Rs. 10 for failure to take out a license under Section 249, Act 5 of 1920.2. It is admitted that petitioner has a weaving factory containing nine looms of the sort which the weaver works with his hands and feet, known as a maggom or European loom. The Bench has found that ho was liable to take out a license for using for an ' industrial purpose ' machinery as provided in Sub-clasue (q) of Schedule 5, Act 5, 1920. The question for determination is whether those looms are machinery within the mischief of the Act.3. The learned Public Prosecutor argues that the Sub-clasue (q) covers anything which is likely to be dangerous to human life, or health or property, and any machinery used for an industrial purpose which is thus dangerous requires a license. On this interpretation of the clause, the word 'machinery' would be otiose. So long as the industrial process were dangerous, it would not ...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu and ors. Vs. Palani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad628
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal raises a novel question. The plaintiff's mother, Pechiammal was first married to one Subramania Thevan in September or October 1903, who divorced her in May or June 1904. She married again one Thirumani Thevan in June or July 1904. The plaintiff was born to her in September 1904. The plaintiff sues for partition of his one-third share in the property of Thirumani Thevan. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was the son of Thirumani Thevan and passed a preliminary decree in his favour. The-Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Thirumani Thevan. Mr. Justice Krishnan set aside the decree at the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the District Munsif holding that the; plaintiff was the son of Thirumani Thevan. There is evidence in the case to show that Pechiammal did not live with her first husband for any length of time, but carried on an intrigue With Thirumani Thevan in c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sivananda Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1072
Devadoss, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 471 read with Section 467 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Madura. His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Madura has been dismissed. The finding is that the petitioner altered the Tamil numerals 27 into 32 in Ex. G a registered deed of partition between him and one Kaliyayi, dated 14th September 1889, and filed it in support of his claim in O.S. No. 165 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Madura taluk. On that finding the appellant has been convicted of using as genuine a forged valuable security knowing it to be forged.2. The contention of Mr. Vaz for the petitioner is that the petitioner acquired title by prescription to the plot in dispute and that Ex. G was not quite necessary for the support of his title and that he could not have intended to cause wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the alteration of the figures in the document d...
Tag this Judgment!Alamapath Krishnan Vs. the Municipal Prosecutor, Cunnanore Municipalit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.873
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the finding and sentence of the Bench Court, Cunnanore, fining him Rs. 10 for failure to take out a license under Section 249, Act V of 1920.2. It is admitted that petitioner has a weaving factory containing nine looms of the sort which the weaver works with his hands and feet, known as a maggom or European loom. The Bench has found that he was liable to take out a license for using for an 'industrial purpose' machinery as provided in Sub-clause (q) of Schedule V, Act V, 1920. The question for determination is whether those looms are machinery within the mischief of the Act.3. The learned Public Prosecutor argues that the Sub-clause (q) covers anything which is likely to be dangerous to human life, or health or property, and any machinery used for an industrial purpose which is thus dangerous requires a license. On this interpretation of the clause, the word 'machinery' would be otiose. So long as the industrial process were dangerous, it w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Natha Venkatesa Perumal Alias Yelchuri Sri Ramulu Chetti, a Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ726
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This is a matter which hasb een put before a Bench on the suggestion of the learned Trial Judge, Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., because it raises a question of some difficulty and some conflict of authorities. The facts are these. There was a minor called Natha Venkatesa Peru-mal Chetti. On the 20th November, 1924, an order was made by Waller, J. in Chambers conditionally appointing the natural father of the boy as his guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. Part of the order was that the father was to furnish certain security. He did not do so and he died in the following July without having furnished any security at all in compliance with the condition contained in the order. On the 15th of August, 1925, the minor became 18 years old. The question we have to determine is whether, having regard to the events that happened and to the terms of the order of Waller, J., the minor is to be regarded as subject to the longer term of minority ending at 21 provi...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliakkal Vs. Palani Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad412; (1926)50MLJ200
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this revision petition is whether Order 9, Rule 13 applies to execution proceedings. The District Munsif of Namakkal passed an ex parte order on 26th October, 1922, directing delivery of property free from obstruction. Defendants 5 and 6 applied on 9th November, 1922, to set aside the ex parte order. The District Munsif has set aside the ex parte order and passed a fresh order. The auction purchaser who is also the decree-holder has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The question for decision is, was the order of the District Munsif setting aside his previous ex parte order passed without jurisdiction?2. The answer to the question depends upon the wider question whether Order 9 applies to execution proceedings. There are several cases on the point which are not all reconcilable. In Tirthaswami v. Annappayya I.L.R. 18 (1894) M. 131 Muthuswami Aiyar, J., held that Chapters 7 and 13 of the old Code did not apply to execution proceedings. Me rested ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »