Chennai Court September 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.
Mathonkandi Kannan Vs. Thayyil Pakkutti Avvulla Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad288; (1927)52MLJ1
1. The question in this appeal is whether 'an application under Order 21, Rule 95 for delivery of property by a decree-holder who has purchased the property in execution of his own decree is a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of the expression in Article 182, Clause 5 of the third column of the Limitation Act. The argument of Mr. Krishna Wariar for the appellant may be summarised under the following heads: 1. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Kannammal. ILR 24 Mad 185, which is a case in point, is opposed to the decisions before and after it.2. The expression ' purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree ' in Article 138 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable to a decree-holder who purchases property in execution of his own decree as well as to a person who is a stranger to the decree, and therefore the former should be held to occupy the same position as the latter in regard to applications made after the Court sale. 3. When the judgment-debtor's property is purchased in Court s...
In Re: Raju Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad78; (1926)51MLJ687
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 323, 114, Indian Penal Code, by the Honorary Presidency Magis-trates, Royapettah, and seeks to set aside the conviction because the Magistrate asked him forthwith whether he wished to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses without recording his reasons under Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It was probably intended by the Code as originally framed that in warrant cases the Magistrate should examine the prosecution witnesses-in-chief, and, if necessary, frame a charge without the intervention of the accused. At the next hearing, the accused could engage his vakil and cross-examine the pro-secution witnesses. Accused persons, however, considered, probably not without reason, that by the time the case reached the charge if the Magistrate had only heard one side his opinion might be too firmly fixed to be shaken. They preferred therefore to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the outset. In such a case, a sec...
Marimuthu Goundan and ors. Vs. Muniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad120
1. The first point urged in this appeal is that the decision in O. S. No. 937 of 1910, as regards joint ownership of Mottaya Goundan and Ayyammal, is not res judicata between the parties in this case. This point was given up by the learned vakil who argued the second ppeal before the learned Judge, but Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar presses it before us. In O. S. No. 937 of 1910, the minor grandsons of Mottaya Goundan, who are Defendants 1 and 2 here, brought a suit for possession of the property from Defendants 1 and 2 therein, one of whom claimed to be the lessee from Mottaya Goundan. The case of the plaintiffs was that the whole of the property belonged to Mottaya Goundan and that Mottaya Goundan had released his right in their favour and that they wore therefore entitled to possession of the property. Defendants 1 and 2 set up the title of third persons.2. In second appeal this Court observed that the suit property was the joint property of Ayyammal and her husband Mottaya Goundan and t...
Veerabhadra thevan and anr. Vs. Sri Vaithianathaswami Koil Devasthanam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad182; (1927)52MLJ399
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, allowing plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1924 to amend his plaint.2. It has been held in Penumarti Vasantarayudu v. Reddi Subbamma (1914) 21 LW 716. that the amendment of a plaint is a matter in which the Trial Court exercises a legal discretion such as will not attract the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. But by this time the limits within which this discretion may be regularly exercised have been clearly laid down along certain broad lines; and if a Court oversteps those limits it constitutes an irregularity that it almost certain to lead, to its proceedings being reversed on appeal. In that case it seems advisable to set such material irregularity right at the outset by revision. At any rate there is good precedent, and, in my opinion, good logic for this practice.3. The plaintiffs sued for rent, alleging that defendants agreed that the property in qu...
Thayyamuthu Vs. Odayappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad391
Krishnan, J.1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal the father of the respondents before me had obtained a decree and in execution of that decree had got certain properties sold and purchased the properties himself. He died subsequently and the respondents have taken his place now. They put in an application to the Court under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P. C., for being put in possession of that property. At that time the only person in possession of the property was a tenant named Pethaperumal. When this application was pending and before orders could be passed on it, an application to set aside the ex-parte decree was made and a stay order was obtained. That case went up in appeal and was finally dismissed. Immediately there after another suit was brought to set aside the decree and for an injunction restraining the defendants therein, the present respondents, from taking possession of the property and an interim injunction was granted. This seems to have continued till the 14th M...
In Re: C.M. Pedda Malla Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad66; (1926)51MLJ685
ORDER1. The chief question for decision in this case is whether the act of the appellants, viz., publishing an advertisement of a Rs. 52,500 lottery, by which a ginning factory was to be raffled at Rs. 5 tickets, is an offence within Section 294(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The argument is that 'goods' in the section applies only to moveables, and that if the Legislature had intended to include immoveable property, it would have said so in appropriate words. We are not able to accept this con-tention. The idea of the lottery was that the lucky winner should get the factory for less than its real value, viz., for the actual sum he paid for his tickets, which would undoubtedly be for his 'benefit'. The proposal therefore was to do something ''for the benefit of any person'. There seems no reason short of complete oversight, why a lottery for moveable goods should be an offence and a lottery for immoveable goods not an offence. The general clause was evidently regarded as sufficient to co...
Thoyammal and anr. Vs. K.A. Rathnavelu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad113; (1926)51MLJ714
1. This is an application to revise the order of the Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an application of the petitioners under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (III of 1922). The petitioners are tenants. The respondent filed an ejectment suit and the summonses in the suit were fixed to the houses of the. petitioners as it was said that they had gone out. This was on 21st December, 1925. The petitioners filed their application under Section 9 on 6th January, 1926. On objection by the respondent the application was dismissed as being out of time, for under Section 9 the application has to be made within 15 days after the service of summonses. It is contended before us that the learned Judge did not record a finding that the service was good and that he did not take evidence as regards the allegations of the petitioners that they were not aware of the affixture of the summonses to the door of their houses and that they came to know of the fil...
Swaminatha Odayar Vs. Subbarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ856
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are in the main undisputed and may be shortly stated The 1st plaintiff obtained some lands under a will. On 16th August, 1917 he entered into an agreement to sell the said lands to the defendant for Rs. 15,250 and on that day obtained a cash advance of Rs. 1,250 towards the consideration. On the 24th August a further sum of Rs. 220 was paid towards the consideration. On the 5th September, 1917 a sale deed was executed, a further sum of Rs. 1,780 being paid in cash. There remained an amount of Rs. 12,000 due towards the consideration. The sale deed provided that Rs. 6,000 was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar and the other Rs. 6,000 was to be paid to the 1st plaintiff's mother Sitalakshmi Ammal, who is the 2nd plaintiff. Accordingly on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs. 6,000 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Soon after the 1st plaintiff refused to register the sale deed contending that it was. nominal. T...
Kantimahanti Ramamurthi and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Harbour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad114
Krishnan, J.1. There is no ground for this revision at all. The land acquisition Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference being made to it by the Collector, and its jurisdiction is confined to disposing of the matters so referred. It has no jurisdiction under the Act to consider the legality of the acquisition or of the reference. A very similar case to this is reported in Raghunath Das v. Collector of Dacca [1910] 11 C. L. J. 612 where Mukerjee, J., observes at page 615:It is clear from Section 18 and other sections which follow it that the question of the legality of the acquisition was never intended by the Legislature to form the subject of inquiry by the land acquisition Judge.2. I respectfully agree with that view. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs: one set for each respondent. The lower Court will proceed to dispose of the reference on the points raised in it, according to law.3. As the learned vakil for the petitioner stated that he had not had a proper opp...
Karuppanna Vs. Pambayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad531
1. The first question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the bond sued on, Ex. A, is a slavery bond and therefore illegal and opposed to public policy. The District Munsif dismissed the suit solely on the ground that Ex. A is slavery bond. The terms of the bond are that the Executants 1 and 2 should do pannai work in lieu of interest on the said amount, Rs. 100 and if they failed to do pannai work, without any delay the plaintiff should be at liberty to realize the principal amount and the losses arising therefrom by proceeding against them personally and also against their properties. The terms of this bond differ materially from the terms of the bond which was the subject of consideration on Ram Sarup Bhegat v. Bansimandar [1915] 42 Cal. 742 Here there is no penal interest claimable under the bond. An option is given to the executants to do work to pay the principal sum. The amount is repayable in three years. The terms of this bond are like the terms of the bond which was co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »