Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Mahammad Raza Saheb Belgami Vs. Sadasiva Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad297
Odgers, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 165 of 1923.-This is a petition to revise the order of the District Judge of Guntur confirming a surcharge order made by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts (Ex. A) on the petitioner as Chairman of the Guntur Municipal Council. The ground for the surcharge is that the petitioner illegally issued cheques against the Municipal funds under the powers given him by Rule 55(1), part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (5 of 1920), for the maintenance of 25 elementary schools managed by the Guntur Municipal Council, such objects not being authorized objects under Act 5 of 1920. On 13th July 1921, the Guntur Municipal Council passed a resolution (Ex. I), (a) to introduce the national system of education in all the institutions under the management of the Council; (b) to dispense with the annual grant by Government; (c) to conduct Municipal primary schools independently of Government control.2. On 19th August 1921 (Ex. II), a commit...
Tag this Judgment!Marappa Goundan Vs. V. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad379
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam in O.S. No. 1162 of 1922. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a half share of the suit property on payment of Rs. 30, their share of the mortgage amount, with mesne profits, from the defendants. There were originally three defendants. The property had been sold by the 1st defendant to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 long prior to suit. The 1st and 2nd defendants remained ex parte and the 3rd defendant appeared and pleaded that the 1st defendant was entitled to sell and that the plaintiffs had no share and that the suit ought to be dismissed. At the trial the Munsif held that the plaintiff's claim for a half share in the property was well-founded and gave a decree against all the defendants for partition of the property into two equal shares, and for plaintiffs being put into possession of one of such shares on their paying Rs. 30. It was also decreed that defendant...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Radhakrishna Iyer Vs. Vinayakaswamiar Minor by Guardian T.A. Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.98
Spencer, J.1. An objection was raised to the execution of a decree in a suit for rent tinder Madras Act I of 1908, in which the petitioner did not appear and defend himself against the plaintiff's claim, the ground of the objection being that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defence of want of jurisdiction is one that should have been raised at the trial of the suit itself. After the passing of the decree, the defendant's only course was to apply under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., to have the ex parte decree against him vacated and the suit re-heard. An objection to the jurisdiction of the Court that tried the suit is not one of the questions arising between the parties to the suit and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree which are allowed by Section 47, C.P.C. to be dealt with in execution vide Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty 39 M.L.J. 203 (F.B.) and Kalipada Sirkar v. Hari Mohan Dalal 21 C.W.N. 1104. As the petitioner was in...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Enumula Bojanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1280; (1925)49MLJ423
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case an unfortunate error has crept in the procedure which has vitiated the trial. It resulted from the too frequent transfers of the Magistrates concerned in this case. The first Magistrate who tried the case framed the charge when he was transferred. When another Magistrate took up the case, an application was made to that Magistrate to order a trial de novo under Section 350, proviso (a) and that Magistrate ordered a de novo, trial accordingly. But, before the trial began, that Magistrate was also transferred, and a third Magistrate, a new man, was appointed as the Sub-Magistrate of the place. When he took up the case for trial, his attention was drawn to the order passed by his predecessor granting a de novo trial ; but, instead of granting a de novo trial, what he did was merely to recall the prosecution witness and give leave to the accused's vakil to cross-examine those witnesses. This is not the meaning of ' de novo trial. ' De novo trial means a new...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Aiyar Vs. Budde Varadarajulu Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1211; (1925)49MLJ544
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case a complaint was filed by one Ramalinga Aiyar, who is the petitioner before me, against a number of accused for defamation and the case was tried by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Salem. After the charge had been framed in the case against the accused the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the offence had been com-pounded. It is contended before me that the Magistrate was in error in thinking that there was any completed composition of the offence in the case. What happened was that some mediators advising the parties induced them to enter into a muchilika. The terms of the agreement are set out by the Magistrate in his order. It says :' We agree that you, the panchayatdars, should inquire into all our disputes, namely, (1) the one in O.S. No. 53 of 1923 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Salem, (2) the one in O.S. No. 211 of 1922 on the file of the Principal District Munsif., Salem, and (3) the one in C.C. No. 30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nallakakkan Ambalam Vs. Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad156; (1925)49MLJ628
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the District Judge was not justified in finding that the land in dispute was old waste on the ground that the defendant Devasthanam did not raise the question specifically in the written statement. No doubt the written statement does not raise the question but there is evidence on record to justify the finding of the learned District Judge and this being a question of fact I am bound by the finding. Even though the point was not specifically raised in the written statement, in the pleading or in issues, yet both the parties seem to have adduced evidence as regards that and the matter was evidently argued, before the learned Judge and he came to the conclusion that the land was old waste. That being so I do not think the plaintiff has been prejudiced by the finding of the Judge.2. The next point urged by Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar is that the plaintiff acquired occupancy right by reason of Section 46 of the Estates Land Act. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Sigamani Pandithan Vs. Munibadra Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ668
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff purchased some property from defendants 1 to 3 under Ex. A. After the sale a suit was brought by one Ammani Ammal for half the share of the property on the ground that she was entitled to it as the heir of her deceased son. That suit was decreed by the 1st Court on 20th March, 1913. There was an appeal against the decree which was decided on 13th April, 1914 and the Second Appeal was decided on 1st March, 1917. The plaintiff who was not given possession under the sale sued for possession of the property and he was given a decree for possession of half the property on 22nd December, 1913. The present suit was lied on 10th November, 1917.2. Mr. Patanjali Sastri, for the respondents, contends that the suit is barred by limitation. His contention is that either Article 62 applies or Article 97. Under Article 97 of the Limitation Act a period of 3 years is given for bringing a suit for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards fails. The Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.A.C. Kasi Iyer and ors. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad228
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing a petition of the appellants asking that the adjudication in insolvency of one Sivaswamy Iyer may be annulled. Sivaswamy Iyer was adjudicated on 9-1-1923, and this petition was presented 9 months afterwards, viz , on 22-10-23. In the affidavit filed for the petitioners in the lower Court it is alleged that: (1) the insolvent does not carry on any business within the jurisdiction of the Court of West Tanjore but resides at Madras and carries on business at Madras, Nagapatam and Rangoon ; (2) that the petitioners only came to know of the adjudication on 9-10-23 ; (3) that the petitioning creditor was in collusion with the insolvent; (4) that no notice had been served on the petitioners though they were the largest creditors.2. The petitioning creditor in his affidavit alleges various acts of insolvency, e. g., that 1st respondent (insolvent) was secreting his assets and had made various frau...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Iyer Vs. Budda Varadarajulu Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.666
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case a complaint was filed by one Ramalingier who is the petitioner before me against a number of accused for defamation and the case was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Salem. After the charge had been framed in the case against the accused, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the offence had been compounded. It is contended before me that the Magistrate was in error in thinking that there was any completed composition of the offence in the case. What happened was that some mediators advising the parties induced them to enter into a muchilika. The terms of the agreement are set out by the Magistrate in his order. It says 'we agree that you, the panchayatdars should inquire into all our disputes, namely, (1) the one in O.S. No. 53 of 1923 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Salem,(2) the one in O.S. No. 211 of 1922 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem and (3) the one in C.C. No. 30 of 1924 on t...
Tag this Judgment!Nalakakkan Ambalam Vs. Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.319
Devadoss, J.1. The, first point urged in this second appeal is that the District Judge was not justified in finding, that the land in dispute was old waste on the ground that the defendant devasthanam did not raise, the question specifically in the written statement. No doubt the written statement does not raise the question, but there is evidence on record to justify the finding of the learned District Judge and this being a question of fact, I am bound by that finding. Even though the point was not specifically raised in the written statement, in the pleading or in issues, yet both the parties seem to have adduced evidence as regards that and the matter was evidentially argued before the learned Judge and he came to the conclusion, that the land was old waste. That being so, I do not think the plaintiff has been prejudiced by the finding of the Judge.2. The next point urged by Mr. Ramasami Iyer is that the plaintiff acquired occupancy right by reason of 6 Section 46 of the Estates La...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »