Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1930)58MLJ193
ORDERJackson, J.1. The two petitioners have been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine under Section 332, Indian Penal Code, for resisting a distraint under a warrant purporting to have been issued by the Municipal Chairman of Cuddapah.2. It seems clear that there was no warrant. The prosecution theory is that the ex-Chairman left a facsimile stamp of his signature behind him, which the peons continued to use. Of course this would be quite irregular and would give no validity to a warrant. 3. It is clear from Appendix A of Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act that the warrant must bear the signature of the Chairman. Signature must be taken in its accepted sense of sign manual. The fact that in Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, sign is used as including stamp has no bearing on the Madras District Municipalities Act.4. The only departure from the general rule is that if the Chairman happens to be illiterate, under Section 3 (29), Madras General Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad744; (1930)59MLJ461
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, daughter of the last male holder, in favour of her daughter's son are not binding on the plaintiff, now appellant, beyond her life-time. The plaint alleged that the last male holder, Mahadevudu, who was the elder brother of the plaintiff's father, died intestate. In her written statement the 1st defendant set up a will said to have been executed by Mahadevudu in her favour in 1877 and the case turns upon the validity and effect of this instrument. It is in the first place disputed that it is a will and not a gift-deed. Both the Lower Courts have found that it is a will and have applied the presumption permissible under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, relying on that provision to find not only that it is genuine, a finding not now disputed, but also that it was executed by Mahadevudu when in a sound disposing state of mind. Whether Section 90 can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1930)59MLJ956
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she has a right of way over a road called the 'Circular Road' leading to the premises known as the 'Uplands House' in Waltair. The Rajah of Kuruppam, who was the owner of this property, died leaving the plaintiff, his daughter, the defendant and the Zamindar of Kuruppam, his sons. After his deatn the property was partitioned between the plaintiff, the defendant and his brother. The plaintiff got the block marked A in the plan annexed to the plaint. The property is a very extensive one. '' According to the plan, there is what is called a Circular Road leading from the Beach Road to the main building which, according to the evidence, was being used as a means of access to the building during the lifetime of the Rajah of Kurupipam. On the north, there is a Municipal Road and the suit property abuts that road. According to the evidence, there was a way leading from that road to this building which was used fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad659; (1930)58MLJ240
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are: the plaintiff had to pay off the mortgage amount due on a mortgage over property sold to him by the defendant under a document of sale, Ex. A, dated 19th June, 1918. That contains a statement thatif in respect of this any dispute arises from any quarter, I shall, at my own expense, set the same at rest and see that the sale is given effect to without any obstruction whatever. In respect of the said property I have not created as yet any right or interest in favour of any.2. The defendant himself had obtained the property in a Court sale in execution of a money decree against a judgment-debtor Ibrahim Sahib who had previously mortgaged the property. It was this mortgage that the plaintiff had to pay off when it had ripened into a decree and the decree had been followed by execution proceedings. In order to preserve the property for himself the plaintiff discharged it. He has sued to recover from the defendant the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad609
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she has a right of way over a road called the 'Circular Road' leading to the premises known as the Uplands House in Waltair. The Rajah of Kuruppam who was the owner of this property died leaving the plaintiff his daughter, the defendant and the zamindar of Kuruppam, his sons. After his death the property was partitioned between the plaintiff, the defendant and his brother. The plaintiff got the block marked A in the plan annexed to the plaint. The property is a very extensive one. According to the plan there is what is called a circular road leading from the Beach Road to the main building which according to the evidence was being used as a means of access to the building during the lifetime of the Rajah of Kuruppam. On the north there is a municipal road and the suit property abuts that road. According to the evidence there was a way leading from that road to this building which was used for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad631
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioners have been sentenced: petitioner 1 to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C., and petitioners 2, 3 and 4 to four months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I.P.C.2. They were originally charged generally that some one or other of them caused the hurt, and all were guilty by reason of Section 14.9, I.P.C. from the fact that they were rioting and the hurt was likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object.3. The appellate Court has found that they did not riot and had no common object and then proceeds to find them severally guilty of grievous or simple hurt. A man cannot be convicted of hurt unless he is charged with hurt. AS the charge stood accused were not in the least concerned in sifting who caused each particular injury; for all wore to be held liable for the act of each. Therefore it cannot be said that the omission to frame a direct charge occasioned no failure of justice. Theethumalai Gounder v. Emperor A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad673
Jackson, J.1. Appellants are decree-holders in O.S. No. 158 of 1922 District Munsif's Court, Srivaikuntam, and hold a decree for ejectment and mesne profits. The respondent has pleaded a prior oral agreement whereby appellants can only eject him on payment of Rs. 175 in discharge of an othi. The learned Subordinate Judge has ordered evidence to be taken on this plea. The appellants claim that it is unsustainable in law.2. The District Munsif rejected the plea in limine because, as laid down in Section 92, Evidence Act; an oral agreement contradicting or varying the terms of a disposition of property reduced to the form of a document cannot be proved. He cited Rajah of Kalahasti v. Venkatadri Rao A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 911 to show that a decree is a disposition of property, and Abdullah Khan v. Basharat Husani [1913] 35 All. 48 as authority that it is immaterial whether the oral agreement sought to be proved is prior or subsequent to the disposition. The learned Subordinate Judge merely recor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad789
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question regarding an easement of necessity, and about the proper construction to be put on Section 41, Easements Act. The facts are not now in dispute. The plaintiffs are the appellants. There were four brothers who formed the members of an undivided Hindu family. About 40 years ago the four brothers effected a partition of the joint family properties. A plot of land with some houses thereon was divided among the four brothers. On the north a public street ran east to west, and on the south there were cultivated fields belonging to strangers. The southern portion of the common land consisted of account gardens, the same was divided into three, the western portion (B-3) fell to the share of the second brother, the middle portion C-3 fell to the share of the 3rd brother, and the easternmost portion (D-3) to the fourth brother. The remaining land was practically divided into four portions. The westernmost A, A-1, and A-2,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 124Ind.Cas.593
1. This appeal arises out of a Suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she has a right of way over a road called the 'Circular Road' leading to the premises known as the Uplands House in Waltair. The Rajah of Kuruppam who was the owner of this property died leaving the plaintiff his daughter, the defendant and the Zemindar of Kuruppam his sons. After his death the property was partitioned between the plaintiff, the defendant and his brother. The plaintiff got the block marked A in the plan annexed to the plaint. The property is a very extensive one. According to the plan there is what is called a Circular Road leading from the Beach Road to the main building which according to the evidence was being used ES a means of access to the building during the lifetime of the Rajah of Kuruppam. On the north there is a Municipal Road and the suit property abuts that Road. According to the evidence there was a way leading from that Road to this building which was used for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad644; 126Ind.Cas.733
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,115 and odd which he claimed to have been paid by him on behalf of the defendant. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated but it is not necessary to set out more than the following, On Parvathi Amma and C. Lakshmana Rao executed two mortgages, Exs. A and B, in favour of one Sankar Rao. The three items in the present plaint were part of the mortgaged property. Item No. 1 is called Kodipadi arwar property which belonged to Lakshmana Rao, who sold it to Siva Rao, who sold it to the plaintiff. The other items Nos. 2 and 3 were brought to sale in execution of a money-decree against Lakshmana Rao in favour of the defendant and were purchased by him. The mortgagee sued on his mortgage, got a decree and brought to sale the Kodipadi arwar property and item No. 2. The plaintiff who had just bought the Kodipadi arwar property from Siva Rao in order to have the sale cancelled deposited along with Siva Rao the sale amoun...
Tag this Judgment!