Chennai Court March 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sundaramma Vs. Venkatasubbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1203; 97Ind.Cas.145; (1926)51MLJ545
1. The question in this appeal is whether the adopted son of a man whose only wife had died before the adoption becomes the son of that wife so as to fie her legal heir. This question does not seem to have been directly decided in any case and, therefore, it will be necessary to see how far the authorities support the proposition. In the first place, it is necessary to consider the principles which govern the adoption under the Hindu Law. In Uma Sunkar Moitro v. Kali Komul Mozumdar 7 C.L.R. 145 Romesh Chunder Matter, J., observes:The theory of adoption depends upon the principle of a complete severance of the child adopted from the family in which he is born, both in respect to the paternal and the maternal line, and his complete substitution into the adopter's family, as if he were born in it.2. This theory has been upheld by the Privy Council in Nagindas Bhugwandas v. Bachoo Hurkisandas 32 Ind. Cas. 403: 14 A.L.J. 185 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 258. The theory then appears to be that the adop...
Singavarpu Rajaratnam and anr. Vs. Sheik Hasanbi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ255
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this appeal is that the petition for restitution of possession by the respondents is incompetent inasmuch as the application on the ground of dispossession is barred by Order 21, Rule 102, Civil Procedure Code. That rule applies to cases where a person who gets title from the judgment-debtor is prevented from objecting to the delivery of possession to the judgment-creditor of the property directed to be delivered to him. In this case the respondents obtained a sale of the judgment-debtor's property on 23rd July, 1920 when an application tor execution was pending and the property had been divided but lots had not been cast. The execution petition was dismissed on the ground that one of the decree-holders had attained majority and that the petition filed by the next friend was not sustainable. A subsequent application for execution was made but no lots were cast and the items that fell to the share of the decree-holders were not determined.Without...
M. Krishna Pattar Vs. K. Seetharama Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1178; (1926)51MLJ480
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut who, reversing the order of the District Munsif, held that the decree-holder appellant's application to transfer the decree in O.S. No. 226 of 1916 from the Alatur District Munsif's Court to the District Munsif's Court of Vaiyitri for execution was barred by limitation. A prior petition for execution, E.P. No. 458 of 1919, had been presented on the 4th of July, 1918. In the course of that petition an application was put in by the judgment-debtor to record satisfaction of the decree on the 1st of August, 1919. A statement was then filed by the appellant on the 18th of August, 1919 praying that the judgment-debtor's petition to record satisfaction of the decree should be dismissed. The present application for transfer was made on the 26th of August, 1922. If time is calculated from the date of E.P. No. 458 of 1919, it is admitted that the present application is barred by time; but it was contended ...
Katifi Muhammad HamidudIn Saheb and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.424; (1926)51MLJ489
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal also raises a question of limitation similar to the one dealt with in the judgment [in C.M. S.A. No. 120 of 1923 Krishna Pattar v. Seetharama Pattar : AIR1926Mad1178 just now pronounced. The appeal was also heard along with the last one. The decree-holders are the appellants. The execution petition out of which the appeal arises was presented on 21st October, 1921. The previous execution petition presented on 28th September, 1918 was returned by the Court for being re-presented with the sale papers and encumbrance certificate, the time allowed for representation being 3 weeks from 30th September, 1918. The petition was re-presented on 21st October, 1918 without the necessary papers called for but with a request inscribed in the petition for extension of time by two weeks for obtaining the necessary papers. Though the request was granted the execution petition was not re-presented afterwards. It has, however, been filed in Court along with the e...
P. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. P. Kuppuswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad18; (1926)51MLJ602
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a criminal revision case against the order of the Presidency Magistrate dismissing a complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The chief ground of attack is that the Magistrate has ignored the proper procedure under Sections 202 and 203 and adopted a procedure for which there is no warrant and which is in many ways open to objection.2. It appears that the procedure is one which has been for many years in practice in that Court. It is that when a complaint is put in and sworn to, the Magistrate without hearing the complainant's case or his witnesses issues notice to the accused to appear and show cause against the issue of process, hears what the accused has to say, examines any witness he wishes to have examined and then decides whether the com-plaint shall be received or not.3. It is argued that this procedure is justified by Section 202. It may be said that it is not prohibited by the letter of that section but it is clearly contrary to the spir...
(Bhogila) Ramchandrayya Patnaik Vs. (Rapaka) Narayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad218
ORDER1. This petition has been referred to us by Government under Rule 59 of the New Agency Rules or Rule 24 of the old rules whichever may be found to apply. These rules apply to petitions against the proceedings of the Agent to Governor or the Government Agent in respect of matters not otherwise provided for in these rules. The present petition, however, does not refer to the proceedings of the Government Agent or Agent to the Governor but is an appeal against the order of the Divisional Officer of the Ghats Agency and consequently it does not appear to be governed by either of these rules, and, therefore, no reference can be made under these rules.2. If it is to be treated as a reference under the old Rule 24 or the new Rule 59 it may be observed that neither of these rules gives to Government any power of reference to the High Court. In these circumstances, we are unable to deal with this petition as we have no jurisdiction to do so. It will, therefore, be returned to the Governmen...
Appathorai Odayar Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad412
1. So far as the application for adjournment made by the appellant is concerned, we think the Judge was perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case in refusing and his order is further justified by the fact that on the refusal of the adjournment the appellant was unwilling to adduce evidence which was available in Court at the time. He merely instructed his vakil to throw up his case if the adjournment was refused trusting possibly to get a different order in the appellate Court. However that may be, the adjournment was rightly refused.2. The second point taken with reference to the bond in favour of the appellant is that the question to be determined was one under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and not under Section 53. The Official Receiver had very carefully stated his grounds for taking action under Section 53 and had put in an alternative prayer that if it were proved that the appellant was a creditor, the alienation should be set aside under Section 54. The ...
Rajah Saheb Mahabhan Doostan Sri Rajah Rao Venkata Kumar Mahipati Sury ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad897
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover the kattubadi on three items of land with separate survey numbers, separate pattas, separate extents and separate kattubadis (see schedule to the plaint.)2. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are said to be connected with Items Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are, it is how conceded for the plaintiff, the purchasers of item No. 3. Therefore they are certainly liable to pay the kattubadi of this item separately i. e., Re. 1-11-3. Now the plaintiff admits in the plaint schedule that he recovered Re. 1-11-2 (in two parts of Re. 0-13-7 each) for the properties sued for and gives credit for the payments though he did not allege who paid it. The Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 said that it is they that paid it and produce their receipts. I asked the plaintiff to state on affidavit who paid it. He now admits that Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 paid it. Thus the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 have completely paid off the kattubadi fixed on their items except a pie for ea...
K. Raghava Ayyar Vs. C. Ramasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad859
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit to recover some land with profits.2. The suit was filed in 1920, written statement was filed and issues, were framed in October 1920. A commissioner was appointed to take a plan of the disputed locality. The commission was returned in March 1921. The suit was adjourned to 9th June. On account of the Judge's absence on casual leave it was adjourned to July. As plaintiff's witnesses did not come on that day it was adjourned to 5th August. It was then adjourned to 6th August on account of other works of the Court. On the 6th of August it was reached at 5 p. m, and as other work of the Court was not finished it was adjourned to 1st September. On 1st September it was adjourned, to the 8th of September at the request of the plaintiff's vakil, It was then adjourned to 8th October on account of part-heard suits. On the evening of the 7th October a representation seems to have been made by the defendant's vakil saying that he could not go on...
Berhampore Council Vs. the Oriental Govt. Security Life Assurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad944
1. The only question in this appeal is whether under Section 15 Schedule 4 of the District Municipalities Act a company has the option of being assessed under that section or under the proviso. The language of the proviso which says that the company shall pay only certain amounts clearly indicate that those amounts are less than the amounts which would be leviable under the section itself.2. There is also another ground which shows that the option is left to the assessee and that is that the proviso is not to come into force unless the company shows that, its gross income does not exceed a certain amount. There is no provision in the Act to compel a company to show its gross income and unless the company chooses to do so the proviso is not applicable. It is therefore quite applicable that the option is left to the assessee and not to the Municipal Council as decided by the Government. The other points taken in this appeal memo are not seriously pressed and this appeal is dismissed with...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »