Chennai Court September 1926 Judgments
O.A.O.K. Latchmanan Chettiar Vs. J.S. Kannappar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ738
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition brought by Rao Bahadur Latchmanan Chettiar against an order made by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in the following circumstances. On the 17th August, 1926, the petitioner was nominated as a candidate for election as a Divisional Councillor for the 29th Division of the City. It is not in dispute that the nomination paper was regular on the face of it but it was said that the petitioner was disqualified for these reasons. For some time past he had been an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of the City. On the 11th August he tendered his resignation having in mind, no doubt, Section 52(1)(b)(iv) of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 which disqualifies a Presidency Magistrate which has been held to include an Honorary Magistrate for election as a Councillor. That resignation reached the Government on the 14th August and the Government passed a G.O. in the following terms:The Governor in Council withdraws the pow...
Tag this Judgment!O. A. O. K. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. J.S. Kannappar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad93
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition brought by Rao Bahadur Lakshmanan Chettiar against an order made by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in the following circumstances. On the 17th August 1926, the petitioner was nominated as a candidate for election as a divisional Councillor for the 29th Division of the City. It is not in dispute that the nomination paper was regular on the face of it but it was said that the petitioner was disqualified for these reasons. For some time past he had been an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of the city. On the 11th of August he tendered his resignation having in mind no doubt Section 52 (1) (b) (iv) of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 which disqualifies a Presidency Magistrate which has been held to include an Honorary Magistrate for election as a Councillor. That resignation reached Government on the 14th of August, and Government passed a G. O. in the following terms:The Governor-in-Council withdraws the powers of Honor...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. K. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad382
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the Government is entitled to levy water rate on the extent of wet cultivation on the lands in plaintiff's occupation. The source of supply is a spring in Government poramboke land and the water is taken by means of a channel to the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff's case is that he and his ancestors have been using the water of the spring taken through the channel for over 80 years. The finding is that the enjoyment has been for over 60 years. Both the lower Courts have given a decree to the plaintiff and the Secretary of State has preferred this second appeal.2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Government is entitled to levy watercess under Act 7 of 1865, whatever may be the source of irrigation. Here the channel marked A B C in the plan not printed here along which the water flows is said to have been dug by the plaintiff's ancestors and it is also alleged that the source of the spring is in a well or d...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumarasamia Pillai Vs. Muthuswami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad394; (1927)52MLJ148
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against the order of the Lower Appellate Court declining to grant an execution application of the appellant under the following circumstances.2. The appellant obtained a decree against one Muthuswami Thevan. In exection of that decree he attached certain property, brought it to sale and purchased it in Court auction himself on 6th October, 1922. He was under the bona fide impression that the property belonged to his judgment-debtor, whereas it has now turned out that it really belonged to a dayadi of the judgment-debtor of the same name. When the Court sale was confirmed, satisfaction of the decree was recorded on 8th November, 1922. Appellant, having discovered his mistake on 18th December, 1922, applied to the executing Court to have the sale and the proceedings of the Court in satisfaction set aside, and applied for further execution by way of attachment and sale of the real property of the judgment-debtor. Both the Lower Courts have held...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Muthukumara Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad456; 101Ind.Cas.96
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration of his title to a plot of land marked A in the plan which forms the middle portion measuring about 20 cents in the plot marked B C D E. F. Plaintiff's case is that he and his coparceners and their ancestors have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of this plot for over 65 years and have acquired a title to the same by adverse possession and that the Government had no right to institute eviction proceedings against him. He has also sought for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the suit site. The case of the defendant is that the suit site forms part of natham poramboke which belongs to the Government and that the plaintiff has not acquired a valid title to the suit site by adverse possession for 60 years as against the Government. The lower appellate Court, after a due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in...
Tag this Judgment!Veeran Kutti Avaru Vs. Joosuf Haji Jaffer Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.53; (1927)52MLJ316
Reilly, J.1. The suit to which this petition relates was admittedly of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The amount sued for was Rs. 240. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, and the defendants were then residing and carrying on business within that part of the Subordinate Judge's local jurisdiction over which his powers as a Judge of a Court of Small Causes extended. But the Subordinate Judge tried this suit as an ordinary suit, not as a small cause suit, because as it appears both he and the parties were then under the impression that his powers as Judge of a Court of Small Causes did not extend to suits over Rs. 200 in value. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Judge of South Malabar, who made a decree in his favour for part of the amount claimed. Subsequently defendant 1 applied to the District Judge for a review of the appellate decree on the ground among others that no appeal lay i...
Tag this Judgment!Kruttiventi Perraju Vs. Sabbella Bapireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad284
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Cocanada in O. S. No. 72 of 1919 brought by Mr. Perraju for the enforcement of a mortgage executed in his favour by Defendants Nos. 1 to 12. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground of limitation. The appeal to us is thus by the plaintiff.2. The learned counsel for him contends that the finding on the question of limitation is erroneous. The mortgage deed is dated 1st February 1905. The suit was brought on 20th November 1919; prima facie the suit would be barred as 12 years had expired from the date of the mortgage. But it is claimed that he suit is saved on account of a payment made to the plaintiff on behalf of the mortgagors by certain persons who purchased a part of the mortgaged property and who were directed by the mortgagors to pay the purchase money to the mortgagee, Mr. Perraju. That payment is found by the Subordinate Judge to have been made on 29th Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasubbier Vs. Shenbagaratnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad357
Devadoss, J.1. The first point is as regards the cornice of the defendant's house. The contention in the lower Court was that the defendant was entitled to have the cornice projecting to the extent to which the foundation extended into the lane, The plaintiff is entitled under Ex. A, to a breadth of 19 feet, 3 inches east to west including the site of the lane. According to the commissioner's measurement the breadth including the lane is 19 feet, 4 3/4 inches. This difference is owing to the space left by the defendant when the western wall of his house was put up, that is, he left 1 3/4 inches space when he built the wall. That space the defendant is entitled to use for projecting his cornice. The plumb line from the western edge of the cornice down to the ground, is 5 7/8 inches outside the defendant's wall. He is entitled to project his cornice to the extent of 3 inches beyond his wall as he has left 1 inches at ground level and the rest at the basement, and anything beyond is an en...
Tag this Judgment!Bussa Chinna Reddy and ors. Vs. Gangavaram Govinda Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1099
Devadoss, J.1. The only ground of appeal in this case is that the lower appellate Court improperly refused to admit fresh evidence in appeal. This is not a ground upon which a second appeal is sustainable. It was decided in Vaithinatha Pillai v. Kuppa Thevar [1919] 43 Mad. 737:that where a lower appellate Court refuses to admit a certain material document as additional evidence in the appeal under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C. the High Court cannot interfere in second appeal and hold that such additional evidence ought to have been admitted by the lower appellate Court.2. Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant contends that the authority of this decision is considerably shaken by the recent decision of the Privy Council in Indrajit Protap Bahadur Sahi v. Amar Singh A. I. R. [1923] P. C. 128 In that case this point was not specifically decided. The point there was whether the appellate Court was entitled to admit additional evidence and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that it w...
Tag this Judgment!Jaffer Baig Sahib Vs. Chicacole Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad927; 103Ind.Cas.832
Reilly, J.1. Even if there is a darga on some part of the land in question or the land is the endowment or part of endowment of a darga, that does not make the land exempt from Municipal property tax, under Section 83 of the District Municipalities Act 1920, as contended for the petitioner. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »