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.
Singavarpu Rajaratnam and anr. Vs. Sheikh Hassanbi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1031
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 XXI, Rule 102, C.P.C 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 for 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 the fell to the share of the decree-holders were not determined. Without determining t...
Krishnaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ghulam Muhammad Ghouse Saheb and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad951; 97Ind.Cas.469; (1926)51MLJ193
1. The question here is whether where only one candidate for the Presidentship of a Local Board has been no-minated and in accordance with the rules has been deemed to be elected, an election petition will lie against his appointment. The question has been considered by Jackson, J. in Srinivasa Chariar v. Venkatarama Aiyar : (1924)47MLJ762 and he has come to the conclusion that no such petition will lie. His opinion is based on the wording of Rule 1 of the Rules for the Decision of Disputes. This decision is in a case under the Madras District Municipalities Act, whereas the question here arises under the Madras Local Boards Act, but the rules framed under each of these Acts are practically identical. The important words are in Rule 1, that is,No election... shall be called in a question except by an election petition... by any candidate or elector against the candidate (herein after called the returned candidate) who has been declared by the President of a Local Board to have been dul...
Katragadda Ramayya and anr. Vs. Katragadda Bapayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.824; (1926)51MLJ440
Phillips, J.1. The parties in this case referred their disputes to the arbitration of three named arbitrators. One of them, the plaintiff, then applied to the Court under para. 17 (1) of Scheduel 11 to the Civil Procedure Code to have the agreement filed in Court. This has been done and under para. 4 an order of reference has been made, but the Court has added a further direction that in case of disagreement among the arbitrators the opinion of the majority should prevail. The appellants contend that such an order is illegal because it is inconsistent with the agreement to refer to arbitration. It is well settled that when a reference is made to two or more arbitrators the award is not valid unless it is concurred in by them all. This was laid down in United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston and Co. (1896) 1 Q B 567 and was assumed in Cameron v. Cuddy (1914) A C 651. It is also laid down in Baboo Surubjeet Narain Singh v. Baboo Gouree Pershad Narain, Singh (1867...
innasimuthu Pillai and anr. Vs. Rev. A.J. Lutz and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1029; 97Ind.Cas.630
Spencer, J.1.This is a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs claim to represent the Roman Catholic Vellalas and Mudaliars of Vedakkankulam, They sued for possession of a School building and site which hard been sold by Defendants 2 to 6 to the 1st defendant who is an American Lutheran Missionary of Nagercoil. The 6th defendant halving died during the suit, the 7th defendant was brought on record as his legal representative. Further reliefs were also claimed in the shape of declarations and injunctions. The suit failed in the first Court on the District Munsif's findings : (1) that the suit property was not trust property ,(2) that the sale to 1st defendant was valid and binding on the plaintiffs; and (3) that a body of Roman Catholics distinguishable as belonging to the Vellala and Mudaliar castes cannot be legally recognized as there are no caste distinctions among Christians, The appeal to the Sub-Court failed for the same reason.2....
Ramanadhan Chettiar Vs. Ramachandra Sivaji Ghantikae and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1129; 97Ind.Cas.754
1. No. 180 of 1924: The appellant is the transferee of the assignee of the rights of Defendants 1 and 2 at a time when they had obtained a preliminary decree for partition of their share in the family property. The appellant took no steps to be impleaded in that suit, but after the final decree has been passed he applies to execute the final decree passed in favour of Defendants 1 and 2. It is contended for the appellant that he can come in under Order 21, Rule 16 but it is clear that that rule applies to the execution of a decree which has itself been transferred to the person seeking execution. Here the only decree that can be said to have been transferred to the appellant is the preliminary decree in the suit. That cannot be executed. Therefore, Rule 16 is clearly inapplicable.2. It is then argued that the case comes within Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that inasmuch as Defendants 1 and 2 can execute the final decree and the appellant is a person claiming under them...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1167
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There is clearly no point in this second appeal. It is urged for the appellant that her maintenance was by the terms of the Will made a charge upon the property and that therefore Ex. I which is not registered is not valid as a receipt'. This contention is unfounded because there is no charge created by the will. The clause relating to payment of maintenance is, in the usual form, directing the testator's son to pay the plaintiff maintenance at a certain rate. As is pointed out in Narayanrao Ramchandra Pani v. Ramabai 3 Bom. 415 this does not create a specific charge on the inheritance but merely imposes an obligation upon the son to make a payment for the maintenance of the person specified.2. Granting for a moment that a charge was created, even then Ex. I does not require registeration : see my judgment in Gopalaswami Aiyar v. Kalyana Rangappa A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 348. There are no words in the receipt purporting to extinguish the charge; and it does not, therefor...
D.K. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.153
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs claimed patta for their holding for Fasli 1329 from their landlords.2. The only point of difference between the parties at the trial was whether the extent to be entered in the patta was properly chies 12-10-11 or chits 10-4-1.3. The District Judge (Mr. J. Gopala Rao) gives no proper reasons for reversing the decree of the Deputy Collector who decided the question at issue upon a careful consideration of the evidence.4. The plaintiffs relied mainly upon the fact that their patta for fasli 1327 showed the extent to be chies 12-10-11 The presumption under Section 27, Madras Estates. Land Act, was that they held on the same conditions in subsequent faslis. In 1328 no pattas were issued. The defendants did not get the holding measured and rebut this presumption by showing what the actual measurement should be The District Judge wrongly cast the onus on the plaintiffs to prove, that so much as 12-10-11 was available for plaintiffs' enjoyment witho...
Sankunni Variar and anr. Vs. Vasudevan Nambudripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1005; 97Ind.Cas.787; (1926)51MLJ239
William Watkins Phillips, J.In this case some property consisting of machinery and other things belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached and was proclaimed for sale. The sale was adjourned, and the appellants and two others executed a surety bond undertaking to produce the property when called for. This was on the 3rd of July, 1924. The sale was posted for 21st November, 1924, and was adjourned to 19th December, 1924, and then to 16th January, 1925, and on each occasion it was adjourned because the decree-holder granted time on receipt of certain sums from the judgment-debtor. The sale was again adjourned to 16th March, 1925, and the sureties failed to produce the property and consequently the sale could not take place. The decree-holder then put in a petition E.P. No. 297 of 1925 to enforce the liability of the sureties by a warrant of arrest. The Subordinate Judge has found that the sureties have committed default and has ordered that if they do not produce the attached articles...
In Re: Mudurupayalagadu Alias Subbigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad741; (1926)50MLJ559
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The question of law raised in this case is whether a person who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code when he himself is not armed with a deadly weapon but some other member of the assembly is so armed; in other words whether a person who is a member of an unlawful assembly can be punished under Section 148 read with Section 149. The contention of Mr. Ethiraj is that Section 148 does not create a separate or new offence; it provides only for a heavier punishment in the case of rioters firmed with deadly weapons or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. He relies strongly upon Sabir v. Queen-Empress ( ILR 1894) Cal 276. Though the head note of the case is in favour of Mr. Ethiraj's contention, yet the observations of the learned Judges do not go the length of head-note. What the learned Judges observe is:It is only the actual persons who are so armed who can be charged under that se...
Cheedella Chenchayya Vs. Annureddi Pichireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad377; (1927)52MLJ153
Krishnan, J.1. This case has reference to a security bond taken by a Village Court under Section 53 of the Madras Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The question raised is what stamp this document should bear. At present the document bears no stamp at all. When the Village Court was asked why this document was taken without any stamp they replied that in their opinion the document fell within Article 6 of the Court Fees Act and that as Government had exempted the Court-fees payable under the Court Fees Act in Village Courts this document required no stamp at all. This opinion does not seem to be correct. Article 6 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, as amended, applies only to bail bonds and other instruments of obligation under the Criminal Procedure Code or under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Now this bond cannot be treated as a bond under the Civil Procedure Code, for the Code does not apply to the Village Courts at all That has been so ruled by a bench of this Court in Sankaran Na...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »