Chennai Court December 1929 Judgments
Penugonda Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Vedavalli Ammal Vs. K.S. Ganpathy Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad626
Jackson, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly declining to restrain an advocate, Mr. K.S. Ganapathy, Iyer, from appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, in O.S. No. 170 of 1924, in which petitioner is defendant 1. The petitioner in the lower Court relied upon deliberate abuse which the learned Judge has condemned in language which is none too strong and which I endorse. When private quarrels are put into professional hands the proceedings must conform to the forms of courtesy common among gentlemen, and it is surprising that an affidavit like that of P.V. Manikkam Pillai was ever filed in a Court of law. In this Court Mr. Mockett has very properly entirely disassociated himself from its allegations.2. Mr. Ganapathy Ayyar was briefed in O. S No. 114 of 1913 on behalf of one Vedavalli who sued to set aside the adoption of one Rajaratnam. She succeeded. In O.S. No. 170 of 1924 the brother of Rajaratnam sues to declare this adoption valid, an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nallamadan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ509
ORDERJackson, J.1. The eight petitioners have been fined under Section 424, Indian Penal Code, for removing crops attached by the Village Court. Under Section 52, Act I of 1889, a Village Court can only attach moveables. The definition of moveables must, by provision of the Madras General Clauses Act, 18671 be sought for in the Penal Code; and under Section 22 moveables do not include crops. Therefore a Village Court cannot attach crops. The petitioners committed no fraud in removing them, and the conviction must be cancelled and all the fines be refunded.2. Naturally it causes great confusion in the minds of simple villagers that under Section 2 (13), Civil Procedure Code, move-able, property includes growing crops, and under Section 22, Indian Penal Code, or Section 3 (19), General Clauses Act, move-able property does not include growing crops. I would suggest that the legislature make it abundantly plain what a Village Court can do in regard to crops as such. It might at the same ti...
Tag this Judgment!L.V. Narasimha Sastri Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ321
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of our brother Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in the courseof insolvency proceedings relating to the insolvency of P. Kumaraswami Rao, in I. P. No. 263 of 1923. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be stated. The appellant before us L. V. Narasimha Sastri got a decree against the insolvent in Order S. No. 282 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Cocanada on a promissory note said to have been dated 28th January, 1921, and said to have been lost. This decree was sought to be executed against the insolvent. It was transferred to Madras and in execution of it the insolvent was sought to be arrested on the 20th August, 1923. He at once sought the protection of the Insolvency Court. In that petition' he alleged that the promissory note on which this decree was obtained was a fictitious one and that he was also not properly served with summons from the District Munsif's Court of Cocanada. In the schedule to the petition he ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasteva Holla and anr. Vs. P. Mahabala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad674; (1930)58MLJ575
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether in a case of a usufructuary mortgage of warg lands in South Kanara to which the right of holding kumki lands is attached, when the warg lands and kumki lands are both put in possession of the mortgagee and he effects improvements on both, he can on redemption claim the value of improvements on the kumki lands as well as those on the warg lands. The Courts below have held that he is entitled only to the second but not to the first. Hence this appeal.2. The facts are as follows : In 1868 some warg land was usufructuarily mortgaged by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title to the defendants' predecessor-in-title. Possession was given to the mortgagee not only of this warg property which belonged to the mortgagor but also of an adjacent area of kumki land (which belonged to the Government) the possession of which is, according to the rules made for that purpose by Government and which are found in Board's Standing Order...
Tag this Judgment!Madirazu Jagannadha Rao Vs. Somu Lakshminarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad683; (1930)58MLJ688
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. He is the adopted son of the 1st defendant, his adoption having taken place in 1917. The 1st defendant, the adoptive father, executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to sell some immoveable property belonging to the joint Hindu family composed of the 1st and 2nd defendants, In Exhibit A, which is the agreement, the 1st defendant undertook as follows:I shall include my adopted son Jagannadha Rao also as a party to the sale-deed and execute the document of sale in your favour.2. The 1st defendant having defaulted to carry out his part of the contract the plaintiff filed the original suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for specific performance of this agreement to sell, making the father as the 1st defendant and the adopted son as the 2nd defendant to the suit. The 1st defendant set up a plea that the plaintiff himself agreed to secure the conjunction of the 2nd defendant, and the plain...
Tag this Judgment!(illur) Ramayya Chetti Vs. Mannaru Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad590
Curgenven, J.1. By a so-called deed of release (Ex. 2) executed by the reversioner in 1882, property, including the suit house, was conveyed to the 5th defendant Narasamma, sister of the last male holder, and to her son defendant 1, then a minor, for a consideration of Rs. 200. From time to time since then defendant 1 has alienated portions of the property. This property consisted of two houses, a piece of wet and a piece of dry land. While he was still a minor his mother acting as his guardian sold one of the houses under Ex. D in 1885. In 1895 he himself sold one half of the suit house under Ex. C, a sale deed which his mother attested. The remaining half of the suit house was mortgaged in 1904 to the plaintiff's brother. To conclude with the alienations, he disposed of the nanja and punja lands under Exs. F, F (1) and G in 1908 and 1907.2. The mortgaged portion of the house fell to the plaintiff in the family partition and he obtained a decree bringing the property to sale in 1921 a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Gounder Vs. Nagarathnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad712
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of our brother Waller, J., dismissing a claim petition. The respondent obtained a sale decree in C.S. No. 510 of 1924 on a mortgage deed executed in 1914 by the defendant in that suit. The present appellant then filed a claim petition claiming the property basing his claim on a sale deed executed in 1904. The learned Judge dismissed the claim. The appeal is against that order.2. The learned advocate for the respondent draws our attention to an objection that a claim petition does not lie in the case of a sale decree. It is true, this objection was not taken before Waller, J. but all the same it is an objection which must be given effect to; see Deefholts v. Peters [1887] 14 Claus 631 Sanwal Das v. Bismillah Begam [1897] 19 All. 480 and Hukam Singh v. Raghubar Saran (1905] 27 All, 700. The remedies of the appellant are as indicated in the decision in Sanwal Das v. Bismillah Begam [1897] 19 All. 480 either to file a suit for recovery or to re...
Tag this Judgment!L.V. Narasimha Sastri Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.650
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of our brother Kumara Swami Sastri, J., in the course of insolvency proceedings relating to the insolvency of P. Kumaraswami Rao in I.P. No. 263 of 1923. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be stated. The appellant before us, L.V. Narasimha Sastri, got a decree against the insolvent in O.S. No 282 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Cocanada on a, promissory note said to have been dated 28th January, 1921, and said to have been lost. This decree was sought to be executed against the insolvent. It was transferred to Madras and in execution of it the insolvent was sought to be arrested on 20th August, 1923. He at once sought the protection of the Insolvency Court, In that petition he alleged that the promissory note on which this decree was obtained was a fictitious one and that he was also not properly served with summons from the District Munsif's Court of Cocanada. In the schedule to the petition he sho...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayya Chetti Vs. Mannaru Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.492
Curgenven, J.1. By a so-called deed of release (Ex. No. 2) executed by the reversioner in 1882, property, including the suit house, was conveyed to the 5th defendant Narasamma, sister of the last male holder, and to her son defendant No. 1, then a minor, for a consideration of Rs. 200. From time to time since then defendant No. 1 has alienated portions of the property. This property consisted of two houses, a piece of wet and a piece of dry land. While he was still a minor his mother acting as his guardian sold one of the houses under Ex. D in 1885. In 1895 he himself sold one half of the suit house under Ex. C, a sale-deed which his mother attested, The remaining half of the suit house was mortgaged in 1904 to the plaintiff's brother. To conclude with the alienations, he disposed of the nanja and punja lands under Exe. F, F(1) and G in 1908 and 1907.2. The mortgaged portion of the house fell to the plaintiff in the family partition and he obtained a decree bringing the property to sal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »