Court : Chennai
Reported in : 100Ind.Cas.655
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit by certain minor plaintiffs-represented by their mother Chinnammal as their next friend for maintenance against the 1st defendant in the first instance. The learned Judge on the Original Side has given a decree to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 100 a month for each of the two boys, the first two plaintiffs, for their lifetime and Rs. 50 a month to the girl, the 3rd plaintiff, till she attains the age of 18. The appeal is against this decree by defendants Nos. 2 to 5.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the sons of the 1st defendant by their mother Chinnammal who was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of the 1st defendant, Muthiah Chetty, and that as Sudras they are entitled to at least a right of maintenance against their putative father. Muthiah Chetty died after filing the written statement in which he denied that these plaintiffs were his children. He also denied that Chinnammal was a continuously and exclusively kept conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad662; 101Ind.Cas.498
Waller, J.1. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the sole ground that the plaintiff's mortgage was not duly attested, although the defendants admitted in para. 4 of their written statement that Balasubarayudu executed it and although there was no issue directly on this point of attestation and that the plaintiffs attention was not called to the necessity of his proving that the attestors to the mortgage document saw the executant signing.2. [A]It was held by a Bench of this Court in Rangaswamy Ayyangar v. Veeraraghavachary : (1924)46MLJ56 that such an objection should not be allowed to be taken for the first time in the Appellate Court. [A] There was, however, an issue here (Issue No. 2) whether the plaintiff's mortgage was valid and binding on defendants Nos. 2 and 3; and upon this issue the District Munsif considered the question as to validity of the attestation and decided it in plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad579; 101Ind.Cas.349
1. The Judge has found that the insolvent is unable to pay his debts. It is true that some of his debts are exaggerated and one at least looks like a bogus debt. There are other allegations against him in paras. 7 to 9 of the appellant's counter-petition. These will have to be enquired into carefully hereafter. At present we see no ground to interfere.2. The appellant's vakil relies on Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and contends that the present petition does not lie. The case he cites, Venugopalachariar v. Chimanlal Sowcar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 942 relates to an order of annulment and cannot apply to a second petition for being declared insolvent. We agree with Ram Pershad Bhagat v. Mahadeb Lal [1920] 2 Pat. L. T. 335 where it was held that such a petition lies, Section 10 (2) implies that, apart from annulment, a second petition lies.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad591
ORDERWallace, J.1. It appears that the real facts in this case are that when the Sub-Magistrate referred the case under Section 202 to the Police for investigation, the Police sent in a charge sheet to the Sub-Magistrate who accepted it and sent it up to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 346, as he was of the opinion that it was a first class case. It is argued that Section 346 does not permit such action by the Sub-Magistrate at such a stage of the proceedings. The argument takes up two positions: (1) that 'evidence' in Section 346 is evidence' taken by the Magistrate himself and not statements recorded by the Police; (2) that 'inquiry'does not begin until the Magistrate himself begins to take evidence. No authority is cited for either position.2. As to (1), I see no reason to restrict the word 'evidence' to deposition recorded by the Magistrate. Evidence in this section I take it to mean all facts and statements which have been -disclosed by his enquiry. As to (2), I also s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 100Ind.Cas.992
ORDERWallace, J.1. It appears that the real facts in this case are that when the Sub-Magistrate referred the case under Section 202 to the Police for investigation the Police sent in a charge-sheet to the Sub-Magistrate, who accepted it and sent it up to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 346, as he was of the opinion that it was a first class case. It is argued that Section 346 does not permit such action by the Sub-Magistrate at such a stage of proceedings. The argument takes up two positions (1), that evidence in Section 346 is 'evidence' taken by the Magistrate himself and not the statements recorded by the Police, (2) that 'inquiry' does not begin until the Magistrate himself begins to take evidence. No authority is cited for either position.2. As to (1), I see no reason to restrict the word 'evidence' to depositions recorded by the Magistrate. Evidence in this section I take it to mean all facts and statements which have been disclosed by his enquiry. As to (2), I also s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1927)52MLJ251
ORDERWallace, J.1. The main point argued in this revision case is whether the inclusion in Section 4(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the definition of 'Offience' of an 'act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act' renders it unnecessary for a Magistrate who is generally empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to receive complaints of offences, to be specially authorised by the District Magistrate to receive complaints under that section of the Cattle Trespass Act. Section 29 of the Criminal) Procedure Code is relied on. So far as Sub-section 1 is concerned, it is argued that the offence can only be tried by the Court mentioned in Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, that is, by the Magistrate authorised to receive and try charges without a reference by the District Magistrate. So far as Sub-section 2 is concerned, it is argued that, as the offence is not punishable with imprisonment or fine as such, it has no place in the 8th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad379; (1927)52MLJ269
ORDERWallace, J.1. These are two petitions to revise the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissing under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code two complaints by the petitioner for defamation. The counter-petitioner in Cr.R.C. No. 700 is a vakil of this Court. The petitioner, who is an advocate of this Court, was prosecuting in his own name two cases of defamation, one against Murad Ali and one against Fathima Bi Abidin, statements complained of being both of the same nature, to the effect that the complainant had infected his wife with venereal disease. In the course of his argument for the defence in Murad Ali's case his vakil, the counter-petitioner in Case No. 700, made an oral statement that the defamatory statement was in substance true and had been set out as a fact in a judgment of this Court reported in In the matter of an Advocate (1). In the course of his argument for the defence in the other case, the same vakil put in to the Magistrate written notes of defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad558; (1927)52MLJ477
Wallace, J.1. This petition seeks to have set aside the proceedings of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in C.M.A. No. 23 of 1925.2. In O.S. No. 5 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif of Palani the plaintiff, the petitioner obtained an ex parte decree against the three defendants on 13th November, 1923, On 28th April, 1924 the 1st defendant applied to have it set aside. The District Munsif set it aside. On revision in C.R.P. No. 745 of 1924 this Court cancelled that order and sent the case back for re-hearing. At the re-hearing the District Munsif dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree, and on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed that order and allowed the application, and present petitioner brings this Civil Revision petition.3. There were three defendants in the suit, a father and two sons undivided. The 2nd defendant was personally served. The petition to set aside the decree was put in only by the 1st defendant. He was served by substituted service. One o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad396
ORDERWallace, J.1. The main point argued in this Revision Case is whether the inclusion in Section 4 (o) of the Criminal P. C., in the definition of 'offence' of an 'act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act' renders it unnecessary for a Magistrate who is generally empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to receive complaints of offences, to be specially authorized by the District Magistrate to receive complaints under that section of the Cattle Trespass Act. Section 29 of the Criminal P. C., is relied on. So far as Sub-section 1 is concerned, it is argued that the offence can only be tried by the Court mentioned in Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, that is, by the Magistrate authorized to receive and try charges without a reference by the District Magistrate. So far as Sub-section 2 is concerned it is argued that, as the offence is not punishable with imprisonment or fine as such, it has no place in the 8th column of the 2nd s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad639
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for non-delivery of the goods consigned from Ahmadabad under Ex. B. The two defendants are Railway companies; and to the 2nd defendant the goods were consigned and the 1st defendant was to deliver the goods at Tinnevelly. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, framed two issues and called for findings on them. After the findings were received, the Subordinate Judge considered the whole case and gave a decree to the plaintiff. The defendant Railway Companies have preferred this second appeal.2. The first point urged by Mr. V. Viswanatha Sastri for the appellants is that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in raising additional issues and calling for findings on them, inasmuch as the points raised in the additional issues were not specifically raised in the plaint. I cannot say that the appellants were prejudiced by the Subordinate Judge raising additional issues a...
Tag this Judgment!