Chennai Court December 1925 Judgments
Chilakalapudi Moolaswami and ors. Vs. Gurram Tatayya (Minor) by Next F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1079; (1926)51MLJ389
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit by the first plaintiff to set aside a decree in a prior suit brought by his guardian during his minority and for recovery of the suit property. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the earlier decree was obtained owing to the gross negligence of the 1st plaintiff's guardian and has consequently held that it is not binding on the 1st plaintiff nor upon his legal representative, the 2nd plaintiff.2. Objection is taken both to the finding of fact that there was gross negligence and also to the procedure adopted by the plaintiffs. In coming to the finding that there was gross negligence, the Lower Appellate Court has found that the 1st plaintiff's guardian put forward a false recital in the plaint, made a false admission in the Appellate Court and omitted to adduce most important evidence which was within her power. On these facts I must accept the finding that there was gross negligence.3. As regards the second point, it is contended on the authority of R...
Tag this Judgment!Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Narayana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1137
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is a perfectly plain ease. It is to my mind an audacious attempt to evade the plain provisions of the Insolvency Law in this Court. The insolvent was adjudicated and, of course, his estate vested in the Official Assignee who brought proceedings calling upon certain persons whom he alleged to be debtors to the bankrupt's estate to discharge their obligations. While these proceedings were pending, an arrangement was come to, to which the Official Assignee was a party whereby, on payment of certain sums of money into the hands of the Official Assignee for distribution among the creditors, a composition was arrived at and the bankrupt got his discharge. It is now sought by the Official Assignee to go on with those pending applications against the debtors to the bankrupt's estate for the benefit of the creditors who have accepted what they have already had as a full discharge in satisfaction of their claims. It is obvious that such a thing cannot be done. A Bankr...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Narayana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.67
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is a perfectly plain case. It is to my mind an audacious attempt to evade the-plain provisions of the Insolvency Law in this Court. The insolvent was adjudicated and, of course, his estate vested in the Official Assignee who brought proceedings calling upon certain persons whom he alleged to be debtors to the bankrupt's estate to discharge their obligations. While those proceedings were pending, an arrangement was come to, to which the Official Assignee was a, party whereby, 'on payment of certain sums of money into the hands of the Official Assignee for distribution among the creditors, a composition was arrived at and the bankrupt got his, discharge. It is now sought by the Official Assignee to go on with those pending applications against the debtors to the bankrupt's estate for the benefit of the creditors who have accepted what they have already had as a full discharge in satisfaction of their claims. It is obvious that such a thing cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Chakkittandiyil Parkum Illath Chbttiyan Kandi Ammed Vs. Kozhuvammal Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.904
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:---One Tharuvai who was the jenmi of the plaint property demised it on kanom to the first defendant. He subsequently hypothecated the property to one Kalantham who sub-mortgaged his rights to Kathiya in 1895. Kathiya brought a suit on her mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the plaintiff purchased the rights of Kalanttham and Tharuvai and now sues to redeem the kanom in favour of the first defendant. Before the plaintiff's purchase, a suit had been brought against Tharuvai and the equity of redemption in the suit property was sold in Court auction and purchased by one Kunhi Mayan Haji He transferred it to one Sooppi Haji who in turn transferred it to 5th defendant's brother and 5th defendant is now entitled as heir to his brother.2. The first question for consideration is whether plaintiff or 5th defendant was the owner of the equity of redemption. When the suit was brought by Kathiya, Tharuvai was dead. His h...
Tag this Judgment!(Ottavu) Subbiah Vs. Indukoti Obiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad139
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the prosecution had been closed and the case was posted for defence evidence. The pleader for the complainant was present and it was only the complainant that was absent on the adjourned date. The case itself was posted for an unusual hour 7 a. m. Soon after 8 o'clock, the Magistrate took up the case and finding the complainant absent, proceeded to dismiss it. He would have exercised a better discretion if he had given a short adjournment and not dismissed the case in the circumtances. The complainant turned up shortly after; but it was too late and though he had good reason for his short delay the Magistrate had no power to do anything in the case. It seems to me in such cases this Court ought to interfere to set right matters as this Court alone has power to do so. Otherwise an alleged offender escapes punishment through a sheer accident. I think in the circumstances of this case, I should set aside the acquittal and direct the further trial of the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hakim Baig and ors. Vs. Mahomed BurrammudIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad559; 95Ind.Cas.720
Devadoss, J.1. A scheme suit was framed for a mosque at Bezwada in O.S. No. 113 of 1913. Five worshippers at the mosque applied to the 'Subordinate Court at Bezwada to have the scheme amended. The Subordinate Judge, after taking evidence, has amended the scheme to a considerable extent. This appeal is by the members of the panchayat who were appointed to hold office for life. The question raised in the appeal is whether the following clause in the scheme is ultra vires or intra vires.The provisions of this scheme may be altered or modified as if it were in execution of the decree in this suit on the application of not less than three worshippers resident in Bezwada to the Sub-Court exercising original jurisdiction over the town of Bezwada or in the absence of such Court, the District Court of Kistna.2. The contention of Mr. Ramadoss for the appellant is that this provision is ultra vires. Before considering the question whether such a clause is ultra vires or not, we have to see what t...
Tag this Judgment!(Mempu) Ramayya and ors. Vs. Zamindar of Mandasa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad760; 95Ind.Cas.963
1. These Revision Petitions relate to the settlement of rent in seven villages in the Mandasa Estate and have been filed against the order of the Ravenue Board which confirmed, with some alterations the order of the Settlement Officer, Ganjam.2. The ryots put in an application for survey and settlement in fasli 1321. The order of the Settlement Officer was passed in fasli 1331. In determining the fair and equitable rent in respect of the lands, the Settlement Officer acted upon the principle embodied in Section 40, Sub-section 3 Clauses (a) and (b), as he was entitled to do, under Section 168(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act ; and in calculating the average rental value, he took into consideration the ten years ending with fasli 1331. He also excluded fasli 1328 from his calculation as that had been declared to be a famine year by the Government. The Board of Revenue ordered that faslies 1329 and 1330 also should be left out of account in making the calculation.3. The learned Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Taluk Board, Ramnad Vs. Vavaru Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.833
1. Although the plaint asserts that defendants were entrapping also water which flowed on their lands from adjoining lands, the right claimed by the defendants in their written statement is limited to the right to collect and use the rain-water which falls on their own fields. We are not sure that the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have exactly appreciated this, but we think that their finding is that the defendants have put ridges all round their own fields and are entrapping only the water which falls as rain-water on the lands. This finding we must accept. That is also accepted by the learned Judge from whose decision these appeals are preferred, who says: 'What the defendants have done is to catch rain-water as it fell on their lands. The landlord is not entitled to the rain-water which falls on a tenant's land till the water leaves the tenant's land.' The question, therefore, is whether in the case of lands which are cultivated purely by rain-water which falls on them t...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Collector Vs. the Maharajah of Pittapur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ412
1. The award of the District Court directed that the amount awarded by it should be paid to each party. We think this is a clear direction that Government shall pay to each party the amount awarded to him. That is the essential motive and meaning of an award and Government is bound, prima facie, to supply the money required to pay each party the amount of compensation due to him.2. In the present: case unfortunately, the Deputy Collector had not obeyed Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, and instead of depositing in Court the amount to be apportioned, paid over to the tenants the amount awarded by him to them. Consequently, when the District Court increased the Zamindar's share of the total compensation, the balance due to him was not available in Court for payment over to him. The Government view is that the Zamindar must recover it from the tenants to whom it was paid in excess. The Government Pleader calls in aid the third proviso to Section 31(2). We do not think this proviso h...
Tag this Judgment!(Pokuri) Viraraghavulu and ors. Vs. (Pokuri) Yellamanda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad812; 95Ind.Cas.584
Phillips, J.1. The only question of law that is raised in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in admitting oral evidence of a purchase by 1st defendant from D.W. 2. The sale deed was registered but only a copy was produced in Court which was held to be inadmissible and it is now argued that oral evidence of that sale is inadmissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. That section provides (Section 91 quoted.) If it were necessary in this case to prove the terms of the sale that section would undoubtedly be applicable but all that was sought to be proved was the factum of purchase by 1st Defendant. The terms on which that purchase was made were quite irrelevant and had not to be proved in the present case. It is however argued that although Section 91 only prohibits evidence of the terms of 'such a contract, grant or other disposition of property,' yet in regard to the further class of cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a writ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »