Chennai Court September 1930 Judgments
The District Labour Officer Vs. Veeraghanta Venkatasubramania Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad50; (1930)59MLJ911
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Lower Court in the matter of the compulsory acquisition of the claimant's land. 32 cents belonging to him were acquired. The land is situated in old Survey No. 215, now Re-Survey No. 142, in Kattunga village. The Acquiring Officer gave an award at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent., which the Lower Court has increased to Rs. 15. There Vas also a tamarind tree acquired for which the Acquiring Officer gave an award of Rs. 80 which has been increased by the Lower Court to Rs. 120. Government appeals against the decision of the Lower Court and the claimant has filed a memorandum of cross-objections.2. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Government has argued a point of law as well as argued the case on the merits. The point of law is this. The notice about the enquiry was served upon the claimant on 19th August, 1925 and it directed him to appear on 3rd September, 1925. Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act directs the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Venkatesu Vs. Pedda Kesamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad231; (1931)60MLJ336
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the conviction of the petitioner under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, for criminal trespass for entering upon and ploughing up a field called Tunga Chenu, 2 acres 75 cents in extent, belonging to P. W. 1 and leased by her in Fasli 1339 to P.W. 5. The petitioner seems to have set up that he was the person in possession. This was found against, the findings being that the petitioner and the husband of P.W. 1 were two out of five brothers who had once been joint but had subsequently divided off, that these two brothers had divided from each other about four years prior to this occurrence and that the widow, P.W. 1, had been in possession of this property since her husband's death and had paid the kist for it and had also in Fasli 1339 leased it by a registered instrument to P.W. 5 for five years. The petitioner was convicted upon these facts upon the inference of the Lower Courts that his intention in entering upon and ploughing u...
Tag this Judgment!The District Labour Officer Vs. Veeraghanta Venkatasubrahmanya Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.251
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the lower Court in the matter of the compulsory acquisition of the claimant's land. 32 cents belonging to him were acquired. The land is situated in Old Survey No. 215, now Re-survey No. 142 in Kattunga village. The Acquiring Officer gave an award at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent which the lower Court has increased to Rs. 15. There was also a tamarind tree acquired for which the Acquiring Officer gave an award of Rs. 80 which has been increased by the lower Court to Rs. 120, Government appeals against the decision of the lower Court and the claimant has filed a memorandum of cress-objections.2. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Government has argued a point of law as well as argued the case on the merits. The point of law is this. The notice 'about the enquiry was served upon the claimant on 19th August, 1925, and it directed him to appear on 3rd September, 1925. Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act directs the Collector to s...
Tag this Judgment!Nanureddigari Lakshmireddy Vs. Urganapalle Muni Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad488; 131Ind.Cas.5
ORDERJackson, J.1. On examining the record of C.C. No. 504 of 1929 the Sessions Judge of Chittoor acting under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, directed further inquiry and returned the case to the original Court, that of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathi, Meanwhile there had been a change of Magistrates and the new Magistrate after posting the case for inquiry, framed a charge without re-examining the witnesses already examined. Thereupon, the accused petitioned the District Magistrate of Chittoor who transferred the case, holding that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Magistrate was illegal and diametrically opposed to the authoritative rulings. The learned Magistrate has not cited these rulings, but reserved them for a separate instruction to the Sub-Magistrate, a course that cannot be commended, because it leaves the parties and the revisional Court entirely in the dark. However, the learned Public Prosecutor says that the rulings relied upon are Queen-Empress v. Hasnu...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Ramachandra Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad317; (1931)61MLJ66
Curgenven, J.1. The question of law which this appeal raises is whether, during the pendency of a suit for partition, the Official Assignee can obtain in proceedings under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act a declaration that the debts of an insolvent father are binding upon the sons to the extent of their shares in the family property. The father,' Narasimha Aiyar, was adjudicated together with his partner on the 2nd December, 1919. A few days earlier, on the 26th November, a partition deed had been executed between himself and his sons which was held to be void as against the Official Assignee, and this decision was confirmed on appeal by this Court on the 1st August, 1922. Meanwhile, in July, 1922, the sons filed a suit for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura against their father. On the 5th- February, 1924, the Official Assignee made the application to the Insolvency Court out of which this appeal arises. It was a notice of motion praying for a d...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Ramchandra Iyer and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.481
Curgenven, J.1. The question of law which tnis appeal raises is whether, during the pendency of a suit for partition, the Official Assignee can obtain in proceedings under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act a declaration that the debts of an in-solvent father are binding upon the sons to extent of their shares in the family proper-ty The father. Narasimha Iyer was adjudicated together with his partner on the 2nd December, 1919, A few days ear-lier, on the 20th November, a partition deed had been executed between himself and his sons which was held to be void as against the Official Assignee, and this de-cision was confirmed on appeal by this Court on the 1st August, 1922. Meanwhile in July, 1922, the sons filed a suit for parti-tion in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madura, against their father. On the 5th February, 1924, the Official Assignee made the application to the Insolvency Court out of which this appeal arises. It was a notice of motion praying for a declara...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Beari and ors. Vs. Badava Beari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad128; (1931)61MLJ58
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours, the plaintiff being the owner of Survey No.1565 and defendant 3 being the owner of Survey No. 1566. It is said that defendants 1 and 2 claim under defendant 3. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration that the wall marked II in the plan, between the plaintiff's and defendant's properties, was the plaintiff's own wall, that the defendants had no right of passage through the pathway marked D and the defendants should close the doorway marked H (1) and for a mandatory injunction to give effect to the above declaration. The defendants pleaded that wall H was their wall, that it was built on a portion of Survey No. 1566 which belonged to them, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in respect of wall H. With reference to the passage D they claimed a right of way through the same to the buildings F and J. There was also some dispute with reference t...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Kannayya Chetty and ors. Vs. the President, Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad424; (1931)60MLJ462
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are owners or occupiers of houses in the southern row of a street called South Car Street in Tirukoilur Union. They and some other house owners who have not applied to this Court were convicted by the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Tirukoilur, which conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tirukoilur, under Section 207 (1) (a) of the Local Boards Act for failure to remove encroachments into the street in front of their several premises consisting of thatched roofs supported on posts planted in the ground. The common defence of all the petitioners was that the roofs were not encroachments, because the strip of land occupied by them which is at the southern margin of the road was not part of the road but Government land under which there was a water channel called Theppakulam Channel covered by stone slabs laid across the top. This defence was rejected by both the Courts below who found that though t...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumaraswamia Pillai and ors. Vs. R.S. Subbaraya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad505
Madhavan Nair, J.1. S.A. No. 1405 of 1925. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura in A.S. No. 2 of 1922 which affirmed the decree of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The suit related to the office of Sri Pandaram in Vaidyanathasawmi temple, Srivilliputtur. The plaintiffs alleged that the office was held by one Veerappa, Pillai's family as a hereditary office, that they as members of that family are at present entitled to hold that office, that defendants 1 and 2 are trustees of the temple and that defendants 3 to 6 are obstructing them from holding office and receiving its emoluments. The suit was. for a declaration of their right to hold the office and for an injunction directing, the defendants not to prevent the plaintiffs from entering into the temple and performing the duties attached to it. Various issues were raised in the case but in this second appeal we are concerned o...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Pandya Talavar Vs. Rm. P. Rm. M. Subramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ892
1. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in this case. In C. M. P. Nos. 1612, 1613 and 1616 of 1929, Ramesam and Jackson, JJ., ordered that the respond ent in this appeal might draw some amounts from the District Court on giving security to the satisfaction of the District Court. After an elaborate enquiry the District Judge found the secur ity offered sufficient for a certain amount. This appeal is to the effect that the District Judge ought not to have been satis fied that the security was worth so much. No decision has been brought to our notice that an appeal lies in such a matter. On the contrary the principle of Hoare & Co. v. MorsheadL.R. (1903) 2 K.B. 359. is against it. Without discussing other reasons why the finding of the District Judge that the security offered is worth a certain amount does not come within Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the question was left to him by the order that the security must be to his satisfaction, we uphold ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »