Chennai Court February 1929 Judgments
Guruswami Pillai and anr. Vs. Virabhadra Tavulkaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad497; (1929)57MLJ22
Ramesam, J.1. In the Full Bench case (C.M.A. Nos. 155 and 403 of 1926) which was heard along with this case, we have held that where two Judges differ in a Chartered High Court it is Clause (36) of the Letters Patent that applies and not Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code. Now, Clause (36) of the Letters Patent has been recently amended. The question naturally arises whether the amendment is retrospective. Accordingly the question referred to the Full Bench in this case is, does Clause (36) of Letters Patent as amended apply to an appeal which was pending at the time the amendment came into force?2. It was held in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irwing (1905) A.C. 369 that a subject has got a vested right in an appeal and where an Act is passed abolishing the right of appeal, it cannot be used retrospectively so as to deprive him of the right of appeal in cases pending at the time the Act was passed. It has also recently been pointed out in Vasudeva Samiar, In re 2 that that decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jeevaru Vs. Abhupillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Mad370
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. This plaintiff is the appellant in all these second appeals. He filed five suits in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Trivellore under, Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908, to recover rent due. The defendants in some of the suits pleaded that they were bound to pay only a small amount as jodi and road cess, and that they wore not bound to pay the ayan thirva claimed by the plaintiff, and that the suits to recover the ayan thirva were not maintainable. The defendants in the other suits pleaded that they had bean enjoying the lands as sagubadi manyam for generations, free of thirva as inam, and that the claim made now for the first time that they were bound to pay ayan thirva was unsustainable.2. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suits, and the plaintiff has preferred the second appeals. It was explained that the suit lands were situated within the zamindari of Kalahasti, that the villages were purchased by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff s...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudaliar Vs. Davva Venkata Kesavalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad513; 121Ind.Cas.481
ORDERAnanthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These are the Civil Miscellaneous petitions for transfer of certain suits pending in the Court of the District Munsif of Ranipet, and the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, respectively. The petitioner in C. M. P. 4205 of 1928, is Murugesa Mudaliar, plaintiff in suit 58 of 1928 on the tile of the District Munsif's Court of Ranipet (North Arcot District). He filed that suit against D. Venkatakesavulu Chetty to recover a sum of Rs. 870 alleged to be due in respect of goods (brass vessels) supplied by him to the defendant. After the suit in Ranipet Court was decreed ex parte, it is alleged that the defendant therein (Venkatakesavulu Chetty) filed small cause suit No. 210 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bezwada (Kistna District) against Murugesa Mudaliar to recover Rs. 542 alleged to be due in respect of the same dealing in brass vessels. The ex parte decree passed by the District Munsif of Ranipet was subsequently set aside and the suit posted...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jeevaru Vs. Abbupillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.28
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This plaintiff is the appellant in all these second appeals. He filed five suits in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Trivellore under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, I of 1908, to recover rent due. The defendants in some of the suits pleaded that they were bound to pay only a small amount as jodi and road ces, and that they were not bound to pay the ayan thirva claimed by the plaintiff, and that the suits to recover the ayan thirva were not maintainable. The defendants in the other suits pleaded that they had been enjoying the lands as sagubadi manyam for generations, free of thirva as inam, and that the claim made now for the first time that they were bound to pay ayan thirva was unsustainable.2. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suits, and the plaintiff has preferred the second appeals. It was explained that the suit lands were situated within the zemindari of Kalahasty, that the villages were purchased by the plaintiff, and that the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Abdul Salam Sahib Trading Under the Name and Style of K. Sheikh Mee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.72; (1929)57MLJ97
Wallace, J.1. This case comes before this Bench in the matter of the judgment of this Court in a second appeal. There was a disagreement in the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 1328 of 1924 between two learned Judges of this Court, Mr. Justice Devadoss and Mr. Justice Jackson. The appellant's appeal stood dismissed on this difference of opinion and he has put in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The sole question for decision is whether Ex. C, which was an application for attachment of an amount in the trial Court put in by the plaintiff, the appellant here, is a sufficient application to that Court for the execution of a decree within the meaning of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sum which he attached was the proceeds of a sale under an attachment before judgment by the defendant to his suit. The plaintiff himself obtained his decree on 16th June, 1922, and on the 30th June following he put in the application, Ex. C, asking for an order of attachment and an order was pas...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Raheem Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad600; 118Ind.Cas.278; (1929)57MLJ317
ORDER1. This petition has been referred to a Bench owing to the doubt as to the correctness of the decision in Ramachandran Served v. President, Union Board, Karaikudi (1925) I.L.R. 49 M. 888 : 49 M.L.J. 356 expressed in two other cases from this Court in In re Gopayya (1927) I.L.R. 51 M. 866 : 55 M.L.J. 27 and Union Board, Paramakudi v. Chellaswami Thevar (1926) M.W.N. 676. The facts are these: The petitioner owns two motor omnibuses. The Union Board of Tindivanam have provided a stand for buses and have prescribed fees for the use thereof. The fees leviable from the petitioner amount to Rs. 10 for each of his buses. He refused to pay, whereupon the Board took action against him under Section 221 of the Local Boards Act. Before the Magistrate the petitioner contended that the fee was not legally leviable. To that the Board replied that such a contention was not open to him. The Magistrate following Ramachandran Servai v. President, Union Board, Karaikudi (1925) I.L.R. 49 M. 888 : 49 M...
Tag this Judgment!Lazar Fernando Vs. Amirtham Fernando
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad604; (1929)57MLJ214
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case the complainant, a brother of the accused, has laid his complaint in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Tuticorin under Section 55 of the Abkari Act and Section 9(c) and (d) of the Opium Act. The story is very shortly, that the accused was seen by the complainant and others going down towards the shore, where it is said he had a boat ready to ship ganja and opium on board a vessel that was lying at the port of Tuticorin. The complainant and his party are said to have arrested the accused. The former informed the Sub-Inspector who arrived with two constables at about 1 o'clock in the morning and to whom the accused, who is said to have had a sack with him, was handed over by the complainant and his party. Objection was taken that the provisions of both the Abkari and the Opium Acts prohibit prosecution by private individuals and that, therefore, the complainant had no locus slandi to institute these proceedings as the police refused to interfere and referr...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pillai and anr. Vs. Venkatachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad740
ORDERRamesam, J.1. Plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 were legatees under a will. The Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar refused to register the will. Plaintiff 1 filed this suit for registration. Such a suit must be regarded as one filed in a representative capacity as, if the will is finally registered, all the legatees (and not merely plaintiff l) will get the benefit.2. Plaintiff 1 then died. Plaintiff 2 is certainly entitled to continue the suit as one of the persons represented by plaintiff 1. Only in that sense can he be the legal representative of plaintiff 1. But as to the specific rights of plaintiff 1 under the will, he may not be the legal representative. In fact defendants 1 and 2 say they are the legal representatives of plaintiff 1 so far as his particular rights are concerned. This matter is left open. Plaintiff 2 may be the legal representative only for continuing the suit, but at present we cannot say he is the legal representative in respect of plaintiff 1's particula...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madras Vs. Spencer and Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad55; 121Ind.Cas.849; (1929)57MLJ71
Phillips, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the action of the appellant, the Madras Corporation, in raising the licence fee for storing-spirits from Rs. 25 to Rs. 200 was within its powers. Beasley, J., who tried the case has held that the increase in the fee is unreasonable within the meaning of the term as defined by Lord Russell, C.J., in Kruse v. Johnson (1898) 2 Q.B. 91 and has directed refund to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Spencer and Co., of the excess amount paid by them. Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the appellant now takes exception to this finding and says that the power to levy fees for licences under the Madras Act IV of 1919 is conferred on the Council and it is within their power to fix the fee at any figure they please. He contends that if they fixed it at a figure too high or too low, the tax-payer has two remedies, (1) by exercising pressure on the member of the Corporation for his ward with a view to getting the figure altered, and(2) the c...
Tag this Judgment!Vasireddi Sri Chandramouleswara Prasad Bahadur Manne Sultan Zamindar G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad490; (1929)57MLJ487
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by a land-holder under Section 151 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The defendant is a ryot who is in possession under a patta of ten cents of dry land adjacent to his house. The plaint allegations were that on the 26th August, 1923, the defendant began to remove earth by digging pits in these ten cents of land, that by doing so the value of the holding was materially impaired and the land substantially rendered unfit for agricultural purposes. The plaintiff claimed that on those allegations he was entitled under Section 151 of the Act to eject the defendant from his holding, or in the alternative to compensation or an injunction. The plaintiff sued for all the three reliefs assessing his damages at Rs. 500. The defendant pleaded that he did not dig pits on the 26th August, 1923, as alleged by the plaintiff, or render the holding unlit for cultivation for agricultural purposes by doing so. But he alleged that these ten cents...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »