Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad1; 121Ind.Cas.765
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant before me. He instituted the original suit to recover possession of three acres and odd of land alleged to be included in his holding as a ryot under the defendant, the Maharajah of Pithapuram. His case is that the defendant encroached upon the suit three acres and odd, which were in the plaintiff's possession, for the purpose of constructing bungalows for the estate officials. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant promised to give him about 14 acres of another land called Bangaru Doddi but that the defendant did not do so, and consequently the present suit was instituted within 12 years from the date of trespass by the defendant. The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff relinquished the suit lands in his favour and that in consideration thereof he (the defendant) gave the plaintiff an equal extent out of Bangaru Doddi land to be held as ryoti land and also agreed to give the plaintiff the remaining ten ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad239
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, brought by the plaintiff (respondent) for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to him from the defendant under the pro-note Ex. A. The case set up in the plaint was, that this pro-note was executed in consideration of a sum of Rs. 400 paid to the defendant in cash. That case he failed to make out, and it is clear from the judgment of both the lower Courts that they disbelieved the plaint version as to the form of the consideration, and they have held that the suit pro-note was given in consideration of past cohabitation which the defendant had with a dancing girl named Chinnathayi. In the view that such a consideration for the pro-note is not illegal, a decree has been given in favour of the plaintiff.2. It is now argued for the appellant, that once the Court below found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the pro-note was supported by consideration as alleged in the plaint, the suit should have been dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad4
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of some importance under Section 73, Civil P.C.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. Defendant 2, Govindasami obtained a money decree in O.S. No, 373 of 1914 on the file of the Tiruvarur District Munsif's Court and had the decree transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Tiruthuraipundi for execution by the attachment of a mortgage debt due to the judgment-debtor (Namasivayam Chetty) by Veerappa Thevan on a hypothecation deed. The mortgage-debt was attached, and Govindasami himself (Defendant 2) was appointed receiver to collect the attached debt. The terms of the order of appointment of the receiver are important: see Ex. B dated 29th April 1916:I appoint the petitioner as receiver to collect the debt as prayed for. He should pay the realized debt into Court and take out the realized sum after taking the further orders of the Court.3. The receiver filed O.S. No. 259 of 1917 on the file of the Tiruthurai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad833; 121Ind.Cas.159
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioners in these two criminal revision petitions, fourteen in number, have been convicted of forming members of an unlawful assembly and committing mischief, under Sections 143 and 426, I.P.C., and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 30. The convictions and sentences have been confirmed on appeal.2. The complainant works a rice mill and the drainage water from the mill flows into a bodi or channel which in turn empties into a main bodi. The petitioners obstructed the flow of the water in the former bodi, and the question which arises is whether in so doing they committed mischief. That question depends upon the more specific question whether they intended to cause or knew that they were likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the complainant. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate who tried the appeal answered that question affirmatively, holding (a) that the complainant had a right so to discharge the drainage water, and (b) that the accused in obstruct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad248
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3) for an injunction restraining defendant 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from acquiring the plaint-mentioned lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The suit was instituted before the issue of any notification by the Government under Section 6 (1), Land Acquisition Act. But, as a matter of fact, such a notification was issued by the Government in respect of the plaint-lands soon after the filing of the suit. That is clear from Ex. 1 which is dated 15th May 1923. The trial Court took into consideration the fact of the issue of the notification, Ex. 1, during the pendency of this suit and held that there was no valid ground for the issue of an injunction restraining the Government from proceeding with the acquisition under the Act. But the lower appellate Court was of opinion, that the suit should be decided on the state of circumstances which existed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.90
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point to be decided in this appeal is, 'Is the order of the lower Court directing sale a valid order?2. The question arises in execution. The decree in the suit was for money passed by the High Court of Madras on its original side. lb was transferred for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Vellore. Certain 17 items of property were attached by that Court which caused two of them to be Bold. The decree was partly satisfied but further execution in that Court became impossible, it having lost territorial jurisdiction over the other items attached. They were with the exception of one item removed by a Government notification, from the limits of Vellore Sub-Court to the local jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Chittoor. The decree-holder thereupon applied to the former Court for re-transmission of the decree to the High Court of Madras. That request was complied with and the High Court in its turn sent the decree for execution to the Chittoor Sub-Court. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad74; (1929)57MLJ723
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The short question is: What is the effect of Sections 199, 200 and 201 of the Indian Companies Act read with Section 3?2. An order was made by the High Court under Section 187 ordering the payment by a contributory in respect of a call. He has property in the District of Tanjore against which the Liquidator can proceed. The latter accordingly produced the order before the District Judge and applied for its execution. The Judge overruling the objection of the contributory held that he had jurisdiction to enforce the order.3. We have to decide whether the order of the District Judge is right. It is stated by both sides that the only relevant provisions of the Act bearing on the question are the four Sections to which we have referred. To them, therefore, we propose to confine our attention. The decision really turns on the meaning of Section 200 read in the light of Section 3.4. The relevant portion of the former section runs thus:Any order made by a Court for or i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad796
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover money due on a registered hypothecation bond, dated 23rd December 1910, Ex. A, executed by defendant l's paternal grandfather, Karuppa Goundan. The plea of defendant 1 was that the document sued on was not supported by consideration and that it was executed to spite defendant 1, and the particular reason for spiting defendant 1 was mentioned in the written statement and I do not think it necessary to mention the reason in this judgment. Issue 1 raised in the case was whether the mortgage sued on was true and supported by consideration. It was admitted that the property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff was the ancestral property of Karuppa Goundan, the mortgagor, and that defendant 1, as a coparcener, was also interested in that property. It is also admitted that defendant 1 was a major at that time. During the trial in the first Court the question arose as to the onus of proof. The Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.68
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover money due on a registered hypothecation bond, dated 23rd December, 1910, Ex. A, executed by the 1st defendant's paternal grandfather, Karuppa Goundan. The plea of the 1st defendant was that the document sued on was not supported by consideration and that it was executed to spite the 1st defendant and the particular reason for spiting the 1st defendant was mentioned in the written statement and I do not think it necessary to mention the reason in this judgment. The first issue raised in the case was whether the mortgage sued on was true and supported by consideration. It was admitted that the property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff was the ancestral property of Karuppa Goundan, the mortgagor, and that the 1st defendant, as a co-parcener, was also interested in that property. It is also admitted that the 1st defendant was a major at that time. Daring the trial in the first Court the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.648; (1929)57MLJ548
Curgenven, J. 1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of two accused persons who were charged under Sections 457 and 380, I..P.C., with housebreaking by night and theft in a building before the Second Class Magistrate of Tiruvarur. Efforts to obtain the presence of the 2nd accused have so far failed, so that I take the case only as against the 1st accused. 2. There is no question that the house of the first prosecution witness was broken into on the 19th August, 1928, and a quantity of property stolen. But there is no direct evidence to connect the present respondent with the theft. He was arrested--on what grounds does not appear--at Negapatam on the 26th August as he was leaving by boat for Singapore, and from there he was taken to the Police Station at Kivalur and the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 5, who effected the arrest says that he obtained a statement from him that same evening with regard to the whereabouts of some of the property. He was kept in the lock-up during that night and th...
Tag this Judgment!