Chennai Court April 1926 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1084; 97Ind.Cas.847; (1926)51MLJ446
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit was the owner of two motor buses called 'The Republic' and 'The Albion' which plied between Ellore and Chintalapudi. He instituted this suit against the Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of Kistna for unliquidated damages caused to him by the improper cancellation of his licence. Under the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which have the force of law, the District Magistrate is vested by Rule 30 with the power of issuing permits in Form G for motor vehicles which are intended to be let or plied for hire outside the City of Madras. One of the conditions in Form G is that the owner of the vehicle, if it be a motor bus, shall arrange for its examination once in every six months by a person approved by the District Magistrate. It appears that the District Magistrate cancelled the licence for the bus 'The Republic' because it was not examined by the District Board Engineer as required by the permit. It was found by the Judge in the...
Tag this Judgment!Neduri Rajanna Vs. Dontukunti Seshamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad155
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The proceedings have taken a somewhat irregular course. The plaintiffs applied to execute the decree dated the 15th of October 1919, and filed E. P. No. 27 of 1922, dated 1st February 1922. Subsequently the plaintiffs and some of the defendants entered into a compromise on the 21st February 1922, and an application E. A. No. 182 of 1922 was made under Order 21, Rule 2 to the executing Court on the same date for the recording of the adjustment. So far as the facts can be gathered from the papers before me this application was made jointly by the plaintiffs and all the defendants excepting Defendants Nos. 1 and 7. It was adjourned to the next day and ultimately dismissed on the 4th of March. It was dismissed on the ground that it was not pressed, but I am now told that it was only the decree-holder's vakil that appeared and said that the application was not pressed. The next step was taken by the plaintiffs who again applied for execution on the 4th of May 192...
Tag this Judgment!T. S. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. A. S. Vedachala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad381
Waller, J.1. In this case an ex-parte decree passed in 1919 has been set aside on an application presented on 27th August 1923. It was originally set aside by an order passed on 28th July 1924. A revision petition was perferred and Wallace, J., directed the application to be re-heard. As I read his order what he required the Sub-Judge to decide was whether defendant otherwise knew of the suit through the registered notice and whether his denial that he got any acknowledgment can be believed.2. As regards the other points raised he said that they were 'points of fact and cannot be raised here.' The only other point raised by the Subordinate Judge's order related to limitation, etc., to the defendant's knowledge of the decree and the Subordinate Judge found it in his favour.3. The Subordinate Judge has now reconsidered both questions. On the first he finds that no summons was served on the defendant. One summons was issued, but it was not served on him. The Court ordered fresh snmmons to...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Bahadur Ottur Vasava Menon (Died) and ors. Vs. Valia Konikkilidath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1087; 97Ind.Cas.735
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this Second Appeal is whether the appellants who are the mortgagors should pay-interest to the mortgagees subsequent to the date of Exhibit E, a petition presented by the appellants under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellants were bound to pay interest subsequent to the date of Exhibit E as they did not deposit the money under Section 83 so as to enable the persons entitled to the money, i.e., the mortgagee's representatives, to draw it from Court.2. The appellants mortgaged the properties to the tarwad of Defendants 1 and 2. At the time of the execution of the mortgage deed the karnavan was one Pangi Achan. Some time after, he was removed from the position of karnavan and the 1st defendant was appointed karnavan. Under an arrangement entered into between the appellants and the mortgagees it was arranged that the appellants should be in possession of the mortgaged property and should pay pa...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.M. Ramanathan Chetti Vs. V.K.N.S.P. Subramanian Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1024; 97Ind.Cas.592; (1926)51MLJ295
ORDERWilliam Watkins Phillips, J.1. The petitioner was the 2nd appellant in A.S. No. 99 of 1922, and he now applies for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree of this Court. His appeal was dismissed and the lower Court's decree confirmed, and it is not suggested that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. If, therefore, this appeal stood alone, the petitioner would have no right to appeal to the Privy Council under Sections 109 and 110 of the C.P.C. The petitioner, however, relies on the fact that a memorandum of objections was filed by the respondents in Appeal No. 99 of 1922 and allowed and consequently, when the appellate decree was drawn up the lower Court's decree was modified to the extent of about Rs. 300 in respect of some rent disallowed in the lower Court.2. It is contended for the petitioner that, as the only decree of this Court has modified the decree of the lower Court, it is not an affirming decree and that, therefore, an appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subbaroya Goundan Vs. P. Muthukumaraswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1001; 97Ind.Cas.581; (1926)51MLJ265
Wallace, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of the interpretation of Sections 56 and 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920) a matter involved in some difficulty because of the loose drafting of the language of the sections.2. The petitioner, who was the President of the Taluk Board of Palladam, failed for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Board. Section 56 says that in such a case, 'subject to the provisions of Section 57,' he shall cease to be a member of the Board. The three months expired on 21st September, 1925. Section 56(4) says:In the case of a person Who has ceased to be a member in consequence of failure to attend meetings, the matter shall be reported by the President at the next meeting of the Local Board which may at that meeting restore such person to office.3. In the present case the Acting President did not report the matter and therefore the petitioner has not been restored to office under that sub-section. Section 57 permits an a...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Rao Mudaliar Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad19; (1926)51MLJ605
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by my brother Devadoss and I entirely agree in the conclusion that he has arrived at, a conclusion which was also arrived at by Wallace, J., in Varadarajulu v. Kuppuswami A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 18..2. As I also find myself in complete accord with the reasoning of those learned Judges, it is unnecessary for me to add more than a few words. It may no doubt happen from time to time that to allow a proposed accused person to appear and to hear what he has to say while the proceedings are at the stage contemplated by Section 202 of the Criminal P. C., might turn the scale and satisfy the Magistrate that there was no case for issuing process under Section 204. I make no doubt that it is in this view that Magistrates have been in the habit of giving a person against whom a charge is formulated at least an option to come before them if he so desires at the earliest stage. It seems to me that such a proce...
Tag this Judgment!(Matte) Narayanamurthi and ors. Vs. (Parankusam) Venkatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad227
Wallace, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the lower Court permitting the two defendants (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2) in O. S. No. 35 of 1922 to have set aside the order of the Court permitting the plaintiff in the suit to withdraw it. The plaintiff in the suit and these two respondents are said to be members of an original joint family from which the plaintiff separated five or six years ago. Prior to the separation they had obtained a joint decree against Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 on a promissory note. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 35 of 1922 to declare that certain decrees and sales, which gave Defendants Nos. 1 and 16 possession of properties, belonging to Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were void and intended to defeat and delay creditors. To that suit Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were made Defendants Nos. 8 and 9, and in their written statement they supported the plaintiff's case. On 9th January 1924, to which date the suit was posted for hearing, the plaintiff filed a petition r...
Tag this Judgment!(Rangaraju) Venkatachalamayya Pantulu Vs. Gedala Simhadri Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1071; 97Ind.Cas.933
1. The facts briefly are these. The defendant had taken a lease of certain land from the plaintiff for a period of 5 years, which ended at about the beginning of 1914. In 1918 the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant. Phillips, J., describes it as being a suit for rent, but that is, we think, not a correct description, for what was asked for was not in terms rent, but damages an account of loss of profits. The trial Court found that the defendant had held over for a certain sum 'either as rent or damages for use and occupation ' The first appellate Court came to much the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. Phillips, J., in second appeal, disagreed. He found that by Exhibit II the defendant had intimated that he was no longer a tenant and there was therefore no question of holding over. Treating him as a trespasser, the suit had, he thought, not been properly framed as a suit for damages. In the result, he dismissed the suit with costs throughout.2. As to Exhibit II, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Menon and ors. Vs. Madhava Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad96
Ramesam, J.1. The second defendant sued the present plaintiff for Rs. 54 in Small Cause Suit No. 925 of 1919 on a kanom demise made by Krishna Menon to the plaintiff, on the ground that the property belonged to the tarwad of Krishna Menon after his death and the second defendant was the karnavan and obtained a decree. The first defendant, an Anandravan collected the same amount from the plaintiff as agent of the karnavan of the Tavazhi. The plaintiff now sues to recover the sum of Rs. 54 back on the ground he made double payments.2. So far as the second defendant is concerned, the suit is to set aside the decree in the Small Cause suit. Though there is no express prayer to that effect, the Court below regarded it in that light. Now the decree in the Small Cause suit can be set aside only on account of fraud or collusion (vide Kadirvelu Nainar v. Kuppuswami Naicker [1918] 41 Mad, 748. No such thing is pleaded. It may he that the judgment in the Small Cause suit is wrong but it cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »