Chennai Court March 1926 Judgments
P.R.M. Muhammad Abdul Kadir Sahib Marakkayar Vs. Syed Abdul Kadir Mara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1141; (1926)51MLJ443
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against an appellate order in a matter relating to the execution of a decree for Rs. 1069-4-0 with interest. In O.S. No. 134 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Paramakudi the plaintiff obtained for the said amount a joint decree against defendants 1, 5 and 6 personally and the assets of one Hamid in the hands of defendants 2 to 4. The decree is dated 13th February, 1919. On the 24th August, 1919, it was transferred to the appellant and he applied to the Court on 8th September, 1919, to recognise the transfer and to execute the decree. On 16th December, 1921, the 1st defendant a Muhammadan--died. His daughter also died, and, on her death, the assignee decree-holder, as her husband, became one of the heirs of the deceased 1st defendant and in that capacity one of the judgment-debtors. The 5th defendant against whom the decree was sought to be executed objected to the execution mainly on the ground that the decree has ceased to be e...
Tag this Judgment!J. Manicka Chettiar and anr. Vs. Kuppuswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad321
ORDERCoutts-Trotter, C. J.1. These are summonses to transfer ejectment applications pending in the Court of Small Causes to the file of the City Civil Court in order that they should be tried along with O. S. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1926 respectively and to empower the City Civil Judge to try the cases as Small Cause suits. That matter was put up before me for argument, because several such applications have been put before me as Chief Justice and I was told that I alone had the power to order such transfers. I have now ascertained that this view rested on the idea that the matter was governed by Section 5 (2) of the Madras City Civil Court Act 7 of 1892. That section enacts that a Judge of the City Court shall be, by virtue of his office, a Judge of the Small Cause Court with respect to cases cognizable by that Court and that every such Judge'shall be liable to perform any duties of a Judge of the Small Cause Court which the Chief Justice of the High Court may require him to perform. In my ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai and ors. Vs. A. Kadir Mohideen Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad962; 97Ind.Cas.684
Spencer, J.1. There has not been a proper trial in this case. The plaintiff sued defendants to recover what was due from them on accounts and what was due from others on defendants' guarantee.2. The 1st defendant counter-claimed, damages for arrest before judgment. He alleged that he was a partner with plaintiff and that he was not liable in this suit without taking an account of the partnership. The only issues framed by the Subordinate Judge were : (1) Is the claim true? (2) Are any of the defendants liable? Obviously there should have been-issues on the questions whether the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were partners in the business, in which these debts were incurred and secondly whether the 1st defendant had personally guaranteed payments of the accounts of all customers whom he recommended to deal in plaintiff's shop ; and lastly whether the plaintiff's application to arrest 1st defenant before judgment was justified upon the grounds stated in Order 38, E. 1, civil Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!Vadlamudai Brahmayya Vs. Guntur Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1007
Spencer, J.1. The question for decision is whether the annual value of buildings which are in existence for only a portion of the year can be arrived at by distributing the gross rent for the period during which they are in existence over the period for which they are assessed.2. I am of opinion that Section 82(2) of Act V of 1920 does not permit this. It declares:The annual value of land and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year.3. The words ' gross annual rent ' and reasonably be expected to let ' do not permit the valuation to be fixed with reference to a shorter period than one year. Rule 15 in Schedule 4 provided for the exemption of buildings which are first completed or occupied within the last two months of a half-year. It is a rule of thumb which does not work in every ease to a nicety so as to adjust the tax to the exact circumstances of every case. But so is the case also...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Sahib Vadlamudi Brahmayya Vs. the Guntur Municipal Council Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.1054
Spencer, J.1. The question for decision is whether the annual value of buildings which are in existence for only a portion of the year, can be arrived at by distributing the gross rent for the period during which they are in existence over the period for which they are assessed.2. I am of opinion that Section 82(2) of Act V of 1920 does not permit this. It declares, 'the annual value of land and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month, or from year to year.'3. The words 'gross annual rent' and 'reasonably be expected to let' do not permit the valuation to be fixed with reference to a shorter period than one year. Rule 15 in Schedule IV provides for the exemption of buildings which are first completed or occupied within the last two months of a. half year. It is a rule, of thumb which does not work in every case to a nicety so as to adjust the tax to the exact circumstances of every case. But so is the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Dodda Basappa Vs. Puddi Earappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad71; 97Ind.Cas.567
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant in this appeal) got a decree for possession of certain lands against five defendants of whom Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were tenants. Having got the decree, he proceeded to execute it. The delivery of the land was ordered on the 20th November 1922, and it was delivered on 11th December 1922. At the same time the plaintiff asked in his execution petition for the attachment of the standing crop. The 2nd defendant put in a claim petition which must be taken to have been allowed on 3rd March 1923, because the order says 'Attachment has been raised.' On the same day the plaintiff applied in another execution application (E. A. No. 115 of 1923) saying that he had made a mistake in attaching the crop, for the delivery of sugar-cane crop standing on a portion of the land. The District Munsif's order dated 3rd March 1923, upon this petition was 'Deliver.'2. Now this order was a wrong order, because if possession had already been delivered on 11th December 1922...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ananthachariar Vs. Rangachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad209
1. The plaintiff-appellant sues to set aside the mortgage-decree obtained against his father, his uncle and himself as minor and several others and all subsequent proceedings in execution of that decree, and to recover his one-fourth share in the properties. His suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that there are no allegations in the plaint entitling the plaintiff to contend that the appointment of the 13th defendant as his guardian ad litem was bad ab initio and that he was not properly represented in the suit. On this finding, it was held that Section 47 was applicable to this suit and any application under that section was barred by limitation.2. It is now contended in appeal that both these findings are wrong and that on the allegations in the plaint a sufficient case has been made out for further enquiry. It appears that the 13th defendant who is a High Court vakil was appointed guardian ad litem of the appellant at the instance of the plaintiffs in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Ramaswamy Pillai Vs. Venkatarama Subbier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad948; 97Ind.Cas.4
Spencer, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of the Small Cause Court found that he had jurisdiction to try this suit for rent. So far as the pleadings are set out in the judgment (the written statement not having been separately printed), it appears that the defendent did not take the objection that the land was situated in an ' estate' as defined in Madras Act I of 1908. Nor did he adduce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was a person owning a village which had been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram and that the grant had been recognized by the British Government.2. The mere existence of occupancy rights in the tenants, even if true, will not take away the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try suits for recovery of rent. This petition to revise the Small Cause Court's decree as not being according to law is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatigadu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1121; 97Ind.Cas.951
1. The only point in this case is whether the offence of theft hag been properly defined by the learned Sessions Judge. He defines theft as the taking of moveable property, from a person's possession without that person's consent. This is not the proper definition of theft. Removal must be done dishonestly and the word 'dishonestly, must be explained to the jury. In the light of the facts of the case we cannot hold the incomplete definition of theft has caused a miscarriage of justice, but We would draw the attention of the learned Judge to the duty of explaining clearly to the jury the offence with which the accused are charged and in doing so the Judge should keep before him the words of the section defining the offence. With these remarks we dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Syid Mustapha Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.812
Devadoss, J.1. The order of the Magistrate is right in the light of the decision in Ramachandran Servai v. President, Union Board, Karaikudi : (1925)49MLJ356 to which I was a party and I adhere to the view I took in that case with reference to Section 221(1) of the Local Boards Act. I refrain from expressing any opinion on the other points dealt with in my learned brother's judgment as they do not arise for decision in this case.2. The petition is dismissed.Waller, J.3. This case raises a question as to the meaning of Sections 164(1) and 221 of Madras Act XIV of 1920. Petitioners were given notice under Section 161(2) of the Act to remove a pandal erected by them on certain land, which has been alleged to have been set apart for public purposes and to belong to the Union Board of Kaveripatnam. They did not comply with the notice and should have been prosecuted* under Section 164(2). The Board, however, elected to proceed under sub Section (1) and demanded from petitioners a penalty of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »