Chennai Court April 1930 Judgments
Arumuga Nadar Vs. Vyyapuri Chetti Alias Muthayan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad795; (1930)59MLJ684
Curgenven, J.1. Two suits (C.S. Nos. 6 and 7 of 1929) for damages for breach of contract were filed in the; Panchayat Court of Tiruchuli against the petitioner in these two revision, petitions. The 'plaintiff in Suit No. 6, corresponding here to C.R.P. No. 1766 of 1929, appears as respondent. The respondent to the other petition is absent. The contention of the petitioner is that the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to try these suits, and upon this ground he presented petitions for transfer to the District Munsif of Manamadura under Section 21 of the Village Courts Act. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the petitions and I am now asked to say that his decision on this question of jurisdiction is incorrect. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 1766 of 1929 raises the point that this objection to jurisdiction was not taken at the earliest possible moment, namely, in the written statement, and I find that while the written statement to C.S. No. 7 does contain such a protest, there is ...
Tag this Judgment!Thandayuthapani Chetty Vs. Alagar Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad38; 129Ind.Cas.255
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. One Alagar Chettiar obtained a money decree against Nallu Boyan and Tirupathi Boy an and in execution of that decree he sought to attach the money due under a usufructuary mortgage executed by Suppayya Goundar in the name of Thayammal, wife of Nallu Boyan, on the allegations that the said mortgage though standing in the name of Thayammal was really for the benefit of Nallu Boyan, that there was a personal covenant to pay in the document, and that under the Madras decisions the decree-holder was entitled in execution of a Small Cause decree through process issued by the Small Cause Court to attach the money debt thus due. Thandhayuthapani Chetti, who is the petitioner before me, claiming to be the assignee of the rights under the usufructuary mortgage under Ex. 2, dated 11th October 1928, objected to the procedure taken by the decree-holder. The plea of the decree-holder with reference to the assignment was that the othi in the name of Thayammal was taken in he...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Muthuveerappa Pillai Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.681; (1930)59MLJ682
1. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie. It is contended that the order appealed against is not an award and Dembeswar Ssarma v. The Collector of Sibsagar (1917) 39 I.C. 637 Banshidhur Marwari v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1926) C. 312 and Sarat Chandra Ghose v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1919) C. 861 are relied on. In the first of these cases the application for reference was made beyond the time allowed. No reference ought to have been made in that case and the District Judge refused to make an award on that ground. The High Court held properly that no appeal lay. In Banshidhur Mar-wari v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1926) C. 312 the appeal was against an order refusing to restore a case dismissed for default. In Sarat Chandra Gkose v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1919) C. 861 the order was made under Section 49 of the Act. All these cases are distinguishable.2. Once a proper reference comes before the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Unnamalai Ammal Vs. Gopalaswami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad199; 129Ind.Cas.655; (1931)60MLJ69
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the second appeal may be stated as follows: The 1st defendant was the original owner of the suit properties which are described in Schedules A and B of the plaint. Both these sets of properties were mortgaged to Kuppuswami Pillai on the 20th June, 1910, under Ex. I. Afterwards the 1st defendant effected a second mortgage of the properties in Schedule A only and some other properties not in the suit in favour of 3rd defendant's father in 1914 by Ex. E. The plaintiff obtained a mortgage decree in Small Cause No. 8 of 1926 against the 1st defendant and in execution of the decree purchased the properties in Schedule B by a sale certificate, Ex. IV, dated 6th August, 1917. Afterwards, the 2nd defendant in execution of a decree in Small Cause No. 1238 of 1914 purchased in Court auction the properties in Schedule A. In 1917 a suit was filed by the 1st mortgagee to enforce his mortgage impleading the 1st defendant, the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. Manikka Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad268
Curgenven, J.1. The defendant has filed this revision petition against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore remanding the suit which was dismissed by the District Munsif of Udamalpet. The only question which arises is whether the judgment in S.O.S. No. 688 of 1925 on the file of the same District Munsif's Court operated as resjudicata. The facts were in brief that the plaintiff's father had been in partnership with the defendant, and that on 16th June 1924 they agreed to dissolve, the defendant taking over some of the assets and the plaintiff's father some of the outstanding in settlement of their mutual claims. The earlier suit was brought against a debtor of the firm and against the defendant here, and it is necessary to look into the terms of the plaint in order to ascertain what exactly the nature of that suit was. After reciting the dissolution of the partnership and what took place on 16th June 1924 the plaint said:As per the above list (i. e., a list given by the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. S. Vasudeva Kamath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad228; 129Ind.Cas.635; (1930)59MLJ479
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is x petition by the Chairman of the Manga-lore Municipality to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional 1st Class Magistrate of Mangalore reversing the conviction of the respondent by the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate of Mangalore for an offence under Section 199 read with Section 338 of the District Municipalities Act and acquitting him.2. The facts are short and practically not in dispute. The respondent is the owner of a compound T.S. No. 127 in the market ward of Mangalore Town. He wanted to erect a new latrine in that compound and made an application to the Municipality on 14th March, 1928, for permission to construct the latrine. The application was accompanied by a site plan and a plan of the building, Exhibits A, A-l andA-2. The place where the respondent wanted to construct the latrine was the north-east corner of the property. It is in evidence that the Health Officer of the Municipality and the Sanitary Inspector inspected the spot when the...
Tag this Judgment!Chintala Venkatasubbiah (Died) and anr. Vs. Kattapalli Akamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ267
Horance Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal comes before us on account of a difference of opinion between Jackson and Thiruvenkatachariar, JJ., upon one point.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant bid at a Court sale, his bid was accepted, but he failed to pay the 25 per cent. deposit as is prescribed by Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code. Having defaulted in the payment of the deposit, a fresh proclamation was issued and a re-sale of the property held. This sale resulted in a deficiency of Rs. 630 and the appellant was ordered under Order 21, Rule 71, Civil Procedure Code, to make good the deficiency. He objects to that order on the ground that the sale was not held 'forthwith' to use the word which appears in Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code, which provides that upon failure of a bidder to pay the 25 per cent. deposit the property shall 'forthwith' be resold. The sale at which the appellant defaulted was held on the 1st September, 1923,...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sac Alias Varusai Mohammad Sahib Vs. Sundara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad817; (1930)59MLJ932
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This case has been referred to us by our brother Jackson, J., because the question for decision by us has been the subject of conflicting decisions in Krishnappa v. Periaswami I.L.R. (1916) M. 964 : 32 M.L.J. 532 and Sethu Konar v. Ramaswami Konar (1925) I.I.R. 49 M. 494 : 50 M.L.J. 205.2. The question before us arises out of proceedings in execution. The 2nd defendant in Original Suit No. 348 of 1917 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif's Court of Madura is the appellant here. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. One Kaliappa Pillai was the original owner of the properties, the subject-matter of the suit, He left a widow and an adopted son Ramaswami Pillai. In 1889 the latter released the suit properties in favour of his adoptive mother. She sold the property in 1894 and between that date and 1909 there were different purchasers. In 1909 the appellant became the purchaser of the property and created a usufructuary mor...
Tag this Judgment!Picha Kudumban Vs. Servaikara thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad494
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against the judgment of a Bench of Magistrates acquitting the accused.2. There is no doubt that the offence complained of according to the allegations in the complaint is one coming within the purview of Section 430, I. P.C. The Bench Court has no jurisdiction to;try such a case. But this case seems to have been sent to the Bench Court for trial, treating it to be a case regarding an offence under Section 426, I. P.C. The question is whether the Bench Court should be deemed to have clutched at jurisdiction. It would be so, if they tried the case for an offence under Section 430, I. P.C. By trying the accused for a lesser offence under Section 426, I. P.C., (for which they had jurisdiction) their proceedings would not be void Emperor v. Ayyan [1901] 24 Mad. 675 and In re, Mohideen Bacha Sahib [1914] 14 Cri.L.J. 640.3. Where the accused is not prejudiced there will be no interference in revision, tho...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Damara Kumara Venkata Lingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu Vs. Panaganti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad97; (1931)60MLJ155
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. In this case two questions have been referred to the decision of the Full Bench and, as it is admitted, that if our answer to the second question should be against the appellant, there is no necessity to answer the first question, we proceed to state such facts as are necessary to make our answer intelligible.2. The plaintiff is the present Rajah of Kalahasthi and he instituted the original suit out of which this reference has arisen for a declaration that the mortgage deed, dated the 21st of September, 1912, executed by the Kalahasthi Rajah, whom we may call here Rajah No. 2, in favour of the 1st defendant is not binding upon the trust, for a declaration that the village in question Yerpedu is property appertaining to a trust in connection with a choultry-charity, and to recover possession of the property. The plea of the defendants was that in fact there was no trust at all, that the properties belonged to the Rajah of Kalahasthi in his personal capacity and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »