Chennai Court July 1927 Judgments
L. Krishnaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Sriram Sriramulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ727
Curgenven, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of Spencer, J., in S. A. No. 1518 of 1923, dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that under Section 102, Civil Procedure Code, no such appeal lay, inasmuch as the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject matter did not exceed Rs. 500. The suit, which was valued at Rs. 354, was brought by a shrotriamdar to recover melwaram and swatantarams from his tenant. Melzvaram, it is not disputed, is rent, and, under Article 8 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, a suit for rent is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes which has been expressly invested with the power to try such a suit. All Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs within the Madras Presidency have been invested with powers to try rent suits upon the Small Cause Side, provided that they fall within the pecuniary limits of their Small Cause jurisdiction, so that the effect of this article, r...
Tag this Judgment!Kasivajjala Ramaswami and anr. Vs. Boddu Veeranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ766
1. The question for decision in this case is whether an application by the decree-holder for extension of time to file an encumbrance certificate can be said to be a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (5) of the Limitation Act. In Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Rajagopala Aiyar ILR (1921) M 466 : 1921 42 M L J 480 it was decided that a statement by a decree-holder objecting to the judgment-debtor's application to enter up satisfaction is not a step-in-aid of execution. Applying the principle of that decision we must hold that the present application does not amount to a step in aid of execution, as 'it does not ask the Court to take any step in aid of execution.' The decision in Hamid-Udin Sahib v. Ghouse Sahib : (1926)51MLJ489 is an express decision on the question before us. There it was decided that an application like the present one cannot be said to be a step-in-aid of execution. In that case, reliance was placed upon the decision in Kuppuswami Chettiar v....
Tag this Judgment!(Board of Control) Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam Vs. Balayee Ammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad61
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Court of Tiruvalur passed on a petition by the President of the Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, of Tiruvalur. The Board of Control was appointed in pursuance of the scheme framed by this Court in Gyanasambanda Pandara v. Vaithilinga Mudaliar A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 168 on appeal from O.S. 52 of 1913, Temporary Sub-Court, Tanjore.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that no appeal lies. The scheme framed by the High Court contains a clause (Cl. 27) that any of the parties or the Board of Control as a body or the Advocate-General are at liberty to apply to the Court for any modification of the scheme. But the present application is not an application for any modification of the scheme and does not come under this clause. In the present application the President of the Board of Control complains that some of the kattalaidars would not send complete budgets of their receipts and expenditure, no...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Abeerchand Vs. V. Sriranganachiarammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad486
1. In this appeal the first question that arises, and one which formed the leading part of the argument in appeal, was that the vendor's lien in this case had been given up by a contract to the contrary. The plaintiff's husband sold certain property to defendant 1 and a sum of Rs. 10,000 was not paid in cash, but a promissory note was executed for the amount. It is, of course, possible that the parties might have intended that this promissory note by itself should form part of the consideration and that they would not treat the Rs. 10,000 as unpaid purchase money. The only question is whether, in the present instance, that was the intention of the parties. It is clear that this intention is negatived; by the recital in the sale-deed by which the vendee was not to alienate the property until the promissory note had been discharged. If the lien was abandoned, this provision is perfectly useless, for it can only be of use in order to enforce such a lien. That lien is given by statute and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abberchand Vs. V. Sriranganacharammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.302
1. In this appeal the first question that arises and one which formed the leading part of the argument in appeal was that the vendor's lien in this case had been given up by a contract to the contrary. The plaintiff's husband sold a certain property to the 1st defendant and a sum of Rs. 10,000 was not paid in cash but a promissory note was executed for the amount. It is of course possible that the parties might have intended that this promissory note by itself would form part of the consideration and that they would not treat the Rs. 10,000 as unpaid purchase-money. The only question is whether in he present instance that was the intention of the parties. It is clear that this intention is negatived by the recital in the sale-deed by which the vendee was not to alienate the property until the promissory note had been discharged. If the lien was abandoned, this provision is perfectly useless for it can only be of use in order to enforce such a lien. That lien is given by Statute and con...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Control Sri Thyagaraja Swami Devasthanam, Tiruvalur Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.136
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub Court of Tiruvalur passed on a petition by the President of the Board of Control of Sri Thyagaraja Swami Devasthanam of Tiruvalur. The Board of Control was appointed in pursuance of the scheme framed by this Court in A.S. No. 136 of 1920, on appeal from Order Section No. 52 of 1913, Temporary Sub Court, Tanjore.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that no appeal lies The scheme framed by the High Court contains a clause (Clause27) that, any of the parties or the Board of Control as a body or the Advocate-General are at liberty to apply to the Court for any modification of the scheme. But the present application is not an application for any modification of the scheme and does not come under this Clause In the present application the President of the Board of Control complains that some of the Kattalaidars would not send complete budgets of their receipts and expenditure nor would deliver the cash in th...
Tag this Judgment!Nainda Pujari Vs. Narna Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1186
1. In view of the decision in Sankaran Nair v. Achuthan A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 651 which the District Munsif himself refers to in his report, and which applies to the circumstances of this case, we think the reference was entirely uncalled for. We see no reason to take a different view from that expressed in Sankaran Nair v. Achuthan A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 651 The District Munsif will follow that ruling and decide the case accordingly. We are much obliged to Messrs. Somayya and Raju for helping the Court as amicus curiae....
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Reddiar and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad232
1. This appeal is against an order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jackson refusing to transfer a case. It has been held: [see Narasa Reddi v. Hajee Tar Mahommad Ayub Sait A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 209] that such an order is not appealable under Section 15, Letters Patent. This appeal therefore does not lie and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Balantrapur Venkatarao Vs. Valluri Padmanabha Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad981; (1927)53MLJ529
Wallace, J.1. These are petitions presented against orders of acquittal of the counter-petitioners in the matter of offences under Section 7 of the Copyright Act (III of 1914) on the ground that the Lower Court has erred seriously in its view of the law.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these cases are that the petitioner published in 1906 and 1908 in two parts a book of Folklore Stories in Telugu containing in all 64 tales. So far as appears, the collection and form of presentation , of these tales and the language in which they were told was original. In 1914 he published a Second Edition which was to all intents and purposes a reprint of the first. In 1925 the counter-petitioners published and sold the same set of tales in almost the same language and order. The petitioner contended before the Lower Court that they had thereby committed offences under Section 7 of the Copyright Act, having infringed his copyright book. The counter-petitioners' defence was that the book publ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagarswami thevan and ors. Vs. Ramabadra Naidu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad38
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. In the suit from which this second appeal arises the appellants were defendants. The plaintiff's action was for recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits on the ground that in a previous litigation between the parties which finally ended in Second Appeal No. 457 of 1915 on the file of this Court the plaintiff's title to the property was declared and recognized. This suit, however, was rendered necessary because, taking advantage of the fact that in the District Munsif's Court in that litigation the defendants who were the plaintiffs obtained a decree, they had gone soon after to the Magistrate and on the basis of that decree obtained possession of that property with reference to which the Magistrate had made certain orders and appointed a Receiver under Section 146, Criminal P.C.2. Three contentions have been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants. His contention was that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the law of limit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »