Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Audiappa Naidu Vs. Muthulakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.610
1. As the respondents Vakil has no instructions we have not had the advantage of hearing arguments on both sides. Mr. Muthukrishna Ayyar for the appellant has very fairly placed the facts and the law arising out of the parties' contentions before us. The main question to be decided is whether two trust deeds, Exs. B and B-l, one being in favour of a Pilliar Temple arid the other for the feeding of Brahmins, are valid and binding on the executor of Ramalingam Pillaiand the members of his family. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of both. So far as B-1 a registered trust deed of 1914 is concerned, we have no doubt that he was right in treating it as valid. It was made on the occasion of Ramalingam's father's and mother's and brother's death and the only other co-parcener in the family, Muthuvelu, consented to it and was himself constituted a trustee under it. It was held in Ramalinga, Ghetty v. Sivachidambara Ghetty (1919) M.W.N. 426. that the manager of a Hindu family could lawf...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. R.M. Nagaratna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad194; 92Ind.Cas.497; (1925)49MLJ643
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I shall briefly state the fact's that have given rise to this appeal. Execution was taken out of a money-decree and the judgment-debtor agreed to pay the decree-holder interest at an enhanced rate and executed in his favour a security bond in respect of certain immoveable properties. As a result of this, an order was made postponing execution under Order XX, Rule 11, C.P.C. The judgment-debtor was subsequently adjudicated an insolvent and on the decree-holder seeking to attach the properties secured and bring them to sale, the Official Receiver applied to the Insolvency Court for an order to stay the sale directed by the Executing Court. The application was refused by the District Judge of East Tenjore and this appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of his order.2. Mr. Varadachariar, the learned Vakil for the decree-holder, objected that apart from the merits of the case the Insolvency Court would have no power to make an order binding upon the Court e...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kuppa Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ421
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Salem. The point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the depositions of witnesses were not read over to them as soon as their examination was over. In other words, the terms of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Report was called for from the Magistrate who tried the case, and in his report he says: ' In cases where the depositions are long and would take a considerable time of the Court if they were then and there read over and interpreted to the witnesses, what is done is to keep all the witnesses aside as soon as each of them is examined so as not to give them an opportunity to mingle with those that are not examined and the place so allotted is within the views of the accused and their pleader. The depositions of these witnesses are read over and interpreted to them after the work in connection with the case for the day is over.' This practice, though it ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kuppa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1206; 90Ind.Cas.659
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Salem. The point urged on behalf of petitioners is that the depositions of witnesses were not read over to them as soon as their examination was over. In other words, the terms of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Report was called for from the Magistrate who tried the case, and in his report he says:In cases where the depositions are long and would take a considerable time of the Court, if they were then and there read over and interjected to the witnesses what is done is to keep all the witnesses aside as soon as each of them is examined so as not to give them an opportunity to mingle with those that are not examined and the place so allotted is within the views of the accused and their pleader. The depositions of the witnesses are read over and interpreted to them after the work in connexion with the case for the day is over.2. This practice, though it may facilit...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnanna Kone and ors. Vs. Muthupalani Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad378; 92Ind.Cas.352
Phillips, J.1. The appellants set up a peculiar custom in their community that widows and daughters were excluded by the reversioners of the last male member of a family and this custom has been found by the lower Appellate Court not have been proved.2. The finding is objected to on the ground that it is bad in law, but I have not been referred to any statement in the judgment in which the law has been wrongly propounded and the arguments here have mainly been directed to showing that adequate weight has not been attached by the learned Subordinate Judge to certain portions of the evidence. It is also contended that two important statements made by the plaintiff's witnesses have not been considered at all. The evidence of these witnesses has been dealt with by the Subordinate Judge and there is nothing so vital in these so-called admissions as to make it obligatory on the Subordinate Judge to deal with them in greater detail. The whole of the evidence is oral although the custom is sai...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ418
ORDER1. The question for decision is whether in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment appealed against may be' excluded in calculating limitation.2. Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act is now made applicable by the Privy Council rules to such applications, but the difficulty is that while Sub-section (2) applies in terms to 'an application for leave to appeal, ' Sub-section (3) does not. But we-think that) though Sub-section (3) does not in terms apply, the language used in it really covers the present case. Under Sub-section (2) when an application for leave to appeal Is put in, the time requisite for obtaining ' a copy of the decree appealed from ' may be deducted. Here the phrase quoted really implies ' a copy of the decree sought to be appealed from ' as the decree cannot strictly be ' appealed from' until leave to appeal has been given. There is no reason why the phrase ' decree appealed from' wh...
Tag this Judgment!Periakaruppa thevan and ors. Vs. Aiyanarsand Kaniyalaswamigal Kovil De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad136; (1925)49MLJ602
Phillips, J.1. In these appeals the question at issue is whether the plaintiffs, minor inamdars, are entitled to evict the defendants who are cultivating their inam lands.2. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the tenants have not proved their occupancy right, and that they have not subsequently acquired the right of occupancy ; and has accordingly decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs.3. In these appeals it is contended that the Lower Appellate Court has not considered the decision of the Privy Council in Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi v. Veeramma Reddi ILR (1922) M 586. In that case it was finally laid down that in considering the nature of an inam grant, namely whether it was a grant of the meivaram only or a grant of both melvaram and kudivaram, no presumption can be made in favour either of the grantee or of the cultivator. For a long period this Court had held that there was a presumption, especially in the case of Brahmins, that the grant was only of the melvaram. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ali Sahib and anr. Vs. Amiruddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad349
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore. The petitioners have been convicted of trespass and assault under Sections 447 and 352, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay fine. The contention of Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioners is that the petitioners acted in the bona fide exercise of their civil. right in ploughing the field in question and that their act does not amount to an offence. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides, but there is the outstanding fact that the property belonged to Kathifabi under the sale-deed executed by Hatiz on 29th September 1886, which is marked Ex. 1. The petitioners claim under Kathifabi; she executed a sale-deed on 11th. December 1922, Ex. 7, to one Mali Hasan Saheb. The complainant's case is that he got an oral sale from his mother-in-law Kathifabi of the whole property and has been enjoying the property for forty years. It may be that his case is true; but when a person who has...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1241; (1925)ILR38Mad939
1. The question for decision is whether, in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment appealed against may be excluded in calculating limitation.2. Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act is now made applicable by the Privy Council Rules to such applications, but the difficulty is that, while Sub-section (2) applies in terms to 'an application for leave to appeal,' Sub-section (3) does not. But we think that, though subsection (3) does not in terms apply, the language used in it really covers the present case. Under Sub-section (2) when an application for leave to appeal is put in the time requisite for obtaining 'a copy of the decree appealed from' may be deducted. Here the phrase quoted really implies 'a copy of the decree sought to be appealed from' as the decree cannot strictly be 'appealed From' until leave to appeal has been given. There is no reason why the phrase 'decree appealed from' when used ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.601
ORDER1. The question for decision is whether in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment appealed against may be excluded in calculating limitation.2. Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act is now made applicable by the Privy Council Rules to such applications, but the difficulty is that while Sub-section (2) applies in terms to 'an application for leave to appeal,' Sub-section (3) does not. But we think that, though Sub-section (3) does not in terms apply the language used in it really covers the present case. Under Sub-section (2) when an application for leave to appeal is put in, the time requisite for obtaining 'a copy of the decree appealed from' may be deducted. Here the phrase quoted really implies 'a copy of the decree sought to be appealed from' as the decree cannot strictly be 'appealed from' until leave to appeal has been given. There is no reason why the phrase 'decree appealed from' when used i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »