Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
Parvathi Ammal Vs. K.G. Venketeswara Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad656; 94Ind.Cas.45
Waller, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Krishnan, J., rejecting an application for leave to file a memorandum of objections in forma pauperis. It is argued that no appeal lies against such an order. There are no doubt, some decisions to that effect e. g., Appasami Pillai v. Somasundara Mudaliar [1908] 26 Mad. 437 and Banno Bibi v. Mehdi Husain [1889] 11 All. 375. But the former has since been expressly dissented from in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar [1911] 35 Mad. 1 and the latter proceeded on a ratio decidendi which is no longer maintainable. The pronouncemant of Sir John Edge in Jeronchad Bhogilal v. Dakare Temple Committee is also relied on, Speaking for myself, I should welcome any clear cut definition which would render unnecessary the discussion which is at present, almost inevitable whether a particular order does or does not pass the test laid down in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar [1911] 35 Mad. 1, That test is never particularly easy of application and would...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheik Abdul Kadir Marakayar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1051; (1926)51MLJ650
1. By Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it is enactedIf, in the course of any assessment under this Act... a question of law arises, the Commissioner may, either on his own motion or on reference from any income-tax authority subordinate to him, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the High Court.and by Sub-section (2)Within one month of the passing of an order under Section 31 or Section 32, the assessee, in respect of w,hom the order was passed, may, by application accompanied by a fee of Rs. 100 or such lesser sum as may be prescribed, require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order, and the Commissioner shall, within one month of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the High Court.2. There is a proviso with which we are not concerned enabling the assessee, if the final determination of the Commissioner und...
Tag this Judgment!Velayuda Gurukal Vs. Annammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad652
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Venkatasubba Row, J., reversing the decrees of the lower Courts and dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of property on the ground that it belonged to an Authinam. Both the lower Courts held in plaintiff's favour. But Venkatasubba Row, J., dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the recitals in the inam documents were against the claim of the plaintiff.2. The point raised by the appellant before us is that the misconstruction of a document which is not a title-deed or foundation of title is not a ground for interference by the High Court in second appeal. The argument is that the original deed of grant was not in evidence in the suit and Exs. A,B,C, I and II, were only evidence in the case and the misconstruction of a document which is only a piece of evidence is not a ground for interference in second appeal. Reliance is placed upon a recent decision of the Privy Counc...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik HussaIn Sahib Vs. Pachipulusu Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad449; 94Ind.Cas.677; (1926)50MLJ377
ORDERMurray Court Trotter, C.J.1. This appeal raises certain questions of fact with which we are not concerned. The question of law to which our attention has been directed is whether the owner of a plot of land on a lower level on to which water flows in the ordinary course of nature from adjacent land on a higher level is entitled in law so to deal with his land as to obstruct the escape of water from the higher land. It is said that any right which the owner of the higher land has is not in the nature of an easement and that terms such as dominent and servient tenements are inapplicable. That may be true in the abstract but it seems to me that the Privy Council and the House of Lords have clearly recognised a very close analogy between the two classes of cases and that if the owner of the land at the lower level raises an obstruction to the natural flow of the water he will be restrained if it causes or tends to cause damage to the owner of that on the higher. Gibbons v. Lenfestey 1...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswami Pillai Vs. Mahdi HussaIn Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad516; 94Ind.Cas.453; (1926)50MLJ655
Spencer, J.1. The respondent brought O.S. No. 225 of 1920 under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act to eject the appellant. Under Section 9 of that Act, the appellant applied for an order that the landlord should be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the Court. The result of the suit was that the appellant got a decree on 12th May 1922 directing the respondent to convey the land to him upon his paying Rs. 615-6-10, being the value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per ground, and that the appellant should pay the respondent his costs and past and future mesne profits. On 10th July, 1923, in E.P. No. 249 of 1923 the respondent applied for execution by attachment and sale of the superstructure. On 18th December, 1923, the appellant applied in C.M.P. No. 1814 of 1923 for a direction of the Court to the respondent to execute and register the conveyance and got an order that respondent should execute a conveyance in three weeks. On 5th December, 1923 the decree was ente...
Tag this Judgment!N.K.N. Ramier and Brothers, Through One of the Partners N.K.N. Perumal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ264
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal relates to damages for breach of a contract entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff. The appellant purchased from Messrs. Ralli Brothers certain yarn bales in December, 1917. Out of these he sold 24 bales to the defendant by two contracts dated 8th and 9th January, 1918. 8 bales were delivered, accepted and paid for; and out of the 16 bales it was held that 7 bales were not according to shipment and as regards 9 bales that although they were according to shipment the plaintiff has not proved any damages by reason of the defendant's breach. Although the appeal was filed with reference to the 16 bales the appellant's vakil said that he would argue the appeal only as regards the 9 bales.2. According to the contract the goods had to be paid for and taken delivery of thirty days after their arrival. They arrived on 20th June and 21st September, 1918. They would have been paid for and taken delivery of on 20th July and 21st October, 191...
Tag this Judgment!N. K. N. Ramier and Bros. Vs. Durwas J. Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad352
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal relates to damages for breach of a contract entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff. The appellant purchased from Messrs. Ralli Brothers certain yarn bales in December 1917. Out of these he sold 24 bales to the defendant by two contracts dated 8th and 9th January 1918. Eight bales were delivered, accepted and paid for; and out of the 16 bales it was held that 7 bales were not according to shipment; and as regards 9 bales that although they were according to shipment the plaintiff has not proved any damages by reason of the defendant's breach. Although the appeal was filed with reference to the 16 bales, the appellant's vakil said that he would argue the appeal only as regards the 9 bales.2. According to the contract the goods had to be paid for and taken delivery of, thirty days after their arrival. They arrived on 20th June and 21st September 1918. They should have been paid for and taken delivery of on the 20th July and 21st Oct...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Kavundan and anr. Vs. Tirupathi Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ259
Wallace, J.1. The appellant urged two distinct lines of argument before us, first, that the villages in which the suit property is situated are not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, but that nevertheless the plaintiff had occupancy rights in their lands, and secondly, that the villages are an estate and the plaintiffs had occupancy rights in their lands before the Act came into force or at least obtained it by virtue of Section 6 of the Act.2. As to the first line of argument, it appears to me that it has been raised in this form for the first time in this Letters Patent Appeal. 1 have no doubt that before the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court and at the hearing in second appeal the only case on which the plaintiffs took their stand was that the suit villages form an estate and on that case the defendant took up the position that they were not an estate. A few stray observations in the District Munsif's judgment do not persuade me to the contrary, and...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Naganna Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad606
1. Appeal against Order No. 234 of 1923. The application to the District Munsif in the case was by the insolvent and was presumably under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. The District Munsif dismissed it on the short ground that it was not an application by the Official Receiver. The insolvent went up to the District Judge, who, purporting to exercise the power of an insolvency Court, and presumably with the view of ensuring that the executing Court acted properly under Section 52, set aside the execution sale. Neither before the District Munsif nor before the District Judge was there any prayer by the applicant to hand over the property to the Receiver. It is difficult to see how the case could come under Section 52 at all.2. Further whether the term ' Receiver ' used in Section 52 is restricted to Receiver appointed after the adjudication, or will apply to an interim Receiver appointed under Section 20, and whether the application under that section is restricte...
Tag this Judgment!Mikkili Ankaya Vs. Alaparti Rattamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad622; 94Ind.Cas.77
1. The first point for decision is whether on the plaint as laid this appeal against order lies. 'We think the claim is founded on an allegation of permissive occupation and is a claim for damages for use and occupation. We do not think the suit comes under Article 31 of the Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and, therefore, it is a suit of a small cause nature.2. The next point taken by the appellant is that the transfer of the suit to the original side under Section 23 of the Act constituted it an original suit, and that, therefore, a second appeal lies as if the suit, was an ordinary original suit. The answer to that is that the transfer under Section 23 does not and cannot change the nature of the suit and it is the nature of the suit which is the test under Section 102, Civil P.C., and Order 43, Rule 1(v). The last point urged is that if the suit though transferred, remains a small cause suit, no first appeal lies. The answer to that is that the suit does not remai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »