Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad655
1. In this case, a scheme was framed in respect of the suit trust and under the scheme permission was given to apply to the Court for direction for the proper management of the institution. The respondents, who are the archakas of temple, have filed this petition praying for payment of the salaries to which they are entitled under the provisions of the scheme. It has now been finally decided by the Privy Council in Sevak Jeranchod Bholilal v. Dakore Temple Committee that application of this nature do not come under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, no appeal lies and the appeal filed here must be dismissed.2. It than remains to be considered what are the rights of the parties under the civil revision petition, which has also been filed, and undoubtedly, that petition raises a question of jurisdiction; for it is contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree containing the scheme. That this argument has considerable force is clear from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad806; 95Ind.Cas.600
ORDER1. The accused has been convicted by the Taluk Magistrate of Tiruvellore, under Sections 159(1) and 207(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920), for failure to comply with a notice issued to him to remove an encroachment on a public road lying within the limits of the Tiruvallore Union. The encroachment consisted of a mud koradu in front of the accused's house. He first began to raise it early in 1916. Ever since 1918, the accused, the Taluk Board and the Revenue authorities had been in communication with each other regarding the removal of this encroachment. After showing an inclination to accept a temporary patta on payment of a small rent, the accused finally declared that he had acquired a prescriptive title to the land said to have been encroached upon by him. Some time after, the Union Board passed a resolution directing the issue of notice to the accused to remove the encroachment. This notice, Ex. M (2), was accordingly issued on the 25th of June 1923. Later on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad698
Ramesam, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in the execution of a decree in O.S. No. 316 of 1912, dated 6-1-1915. The decree was obtained by the respondent against her husband the appellant. The first execution petition was filed on 20-9-1915. The appellant's immovable property was attached. There was a claim petition. It was dismissed on 26-2-1916. The attached property was sold in September 1916 and the sale was confirmed on 10-10-1916. Meanwhile the defeated claimant filed an original suit to establish his right, O.S. No. 420 of 1916. This was dismissed on 9-11-1917. An appeal to the Sub-Court, A.S. No. 55 of 1918, was dismissed on 18-11-1919. The decree-holder then filed a petition for further execution, E.P. No. 44 of 1920, dated 13-11-1919. She was asked to state how her petition which was more than three years from the earlier petition was not barred. She gave no explanation. She asked for further time. After time was extended twice the following order was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 97Ind.Cas.351
Beasley, J.1. This preliminary issue which is whether there has been in law a prosecution, can be disposed of very shortly because there is a recent decision, Pedda Sanjivi Reddy v. Kondagari Koneri Reddi 93 Ind. Cas. 8 23 : 50 M.L.J. 460 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 521, of a Bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri which, in my view, concludes the whole matter.2. The facts in this case are that the defendant filed a complaint before the Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, charging the plaintiff with a criminal offence, viz., criminal breach of trust The Magistrate held an enquiry himself presumably under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. after issuing notice to the plaintiff giving him an opportunity to attend the enquiry. In fact he did attend the enquiry and the result of it was that the Magistrate dismissed the charge. Accordingly this suit has been filed in this Court by the plaintiff claiming damages for malicious prosecution. These are the ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 96Ind.Cas.1011
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit which has led to this appeal relates to a. village known as Ravicherla. It was granted to the ancestors of the plaintiffs by a sanad issued by the Government, dated the 2nd of May, 1843.2. The grant contains two restrictive clauses one relating to the right of succession which provides that Ravicherla shall be held in perpetuity by the grantees and only such of their heirs could take as the Government might recognise for this purpose from time to time. The second clause, the one with which we are concerned in this appeal, imposes a restriction on the right of alienation, no transfer of the village being valid unless the previous consent of the Government has been obtained authorising such transfer.3. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the property and the proposed vendee having regard to the second provision referred to above desired, them to obtain the consent of the Government to the sale. The plaintiffs accordingly, requested the Government to give consent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.718
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in the execution of a decree in Order Section No. 316 of 1912 dated 6th January 1915. The decree was obtained by the respondent against her husband, the appellant. The first execution petition was filed on 20th September 1915. The appellant's immoveable property was attached. There was a claim petition. It was dismissed on 26th February 1916. The attached property was sold in September 1916 and the sale was confirmed on 10th October 1916, Meanwhile the defeated claimant filed an original suit to establish his right, O. S. No. 420 of 1916. This was dismissed on 9th November 1917. An appeal to the Sub-Court, A. S. No. 55 of 1918, was dismissed on 13th November 1919. The decree-holder then filed a petition for further execution, E. P. No. 44 of. 1920 dated 13th November 1919. She was asked to state how her petition which was more than three years from the earlier petition was not barred. She gave no explanation. She asked for further time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.740; (1926)50MLJ514
1. This appeal is against a decree of the Lower Court confirming an award. The 1st defendant and Sriramulu, the husband of 2nd defendant were brothers. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that 1st defendant's father Venkayya brought his sister's son Nagayya, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 into the family as illatom son-in-law, promising him a share in the family property sanctioned by usage to a person in his position; that, when Sriramulu died early in 1923, the plaintiffs claimed their share from the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant also claimed maintenance, that these two disputes were referred to arbitration, the arbitrators being P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.W.I and that the arbitrators passed an award Ex. A. giving to the plaintiffs a third share of the family property and to the 2nd defendant certain land for maintenance. The 1st defendant refused to carry out the first part of the award and the plaintiffs sued to enforce it. The Lower Court passed a decree in their favour and the 1st de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad747; (1926)50MLJ554
1. The only question for determination is the meaning of the words 'date of amendment' in Article 182(4) of the 1st Schedule to the Limitation Act. It is contended tor the appellant that the 'date of amendment' must mean the date on which the decree is actually altered or corrected and not the date of the Court's order directing the amendment, and argument is advanced that an amendment does not bear the same relation to the order as a decree hears to the judgment and that therefore the provision in the Civil Procedure Code which says that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment is not applicable here. As a matter of fact, an order of amendment is itself a judgment and in accordance therewith, the original decree is altered and becomes a new and amended decree in accordance with the judgment pronounced. It seems therefore, clear that the date of the amended decree must be the same as that of the judgment. To hold otherwise would he to put in the hands of the ministerial officers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad1130; 97Ind.Cas.359
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition to revise the order of the lower Court directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 20 per mensem for the child of which the lower Court finds the petitioner to be the father. The grounds urged for the interference of this Court are that the Magistrate has generally neglected the principles of legal evidence and proof and has admitted evidence that was irrelevant.2. In a case like the present, where the question at issue is, whether a certain man was the father of a certain child, it is prima facie improper to accept without corroboration, the mere statement on oath of the mother who asserts the paternity. It is so obviously to her personal benefit and interest to secure a father for her illegitimate child, who will relieve her of the costs of providing for his maintenance that her evidence in such a case cannot but be highly interested, and it would be unreasonable and improper for any Court to act merely on her own word ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.196
1. The only question for determination is the meaning of the words 'date of amendment' in Article 182 (4) of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, It is contended for the appellant that the 'date of amendment' must mean the date on which the decree is actually altered or corrected and not the date of the Court's order directing the amendment, and the argument is advanced that an amendment does not bear the same relation to the order as a decree bears to the judgment and that, therefore, the provision in the C. P. C. which says that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment is not applicable here. As a matter of fact, an order of amendment is itself a judgment and in accordance therewith, the original decree is altered and becomes a new and amended decree in accordance with the judgment pronounced. It seems, therefore, clear that the date of the amended decree must be the same as that of the judgment. To hold otherwise would be to put in the hands of the ministerial officers of...
Tag this Judgment!