Chennai Court January 1931 Judgments
Samarapuri Chetti Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ711
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 76 under Section 287, Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919), read with Section 357. It is found that he is liable to pay a license fee of Rs. 50 for storage of oil on his premises, and Rs. 25 for a fifth press. Apparent, the demand for the fifth press was not disputed.2. By the wording of the statute it is clear that for the use of premises for any purpose specified in Sch. VI the owner must under Section 287 apply for a license. He cannot get a license for manufacturing oil, and then pack or store it without a license. But it is obviously inequitable to charge a person the same fee for manufacturing and packing or storing. This point was raised before the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, and on 12th September, 1923, it resolved that no separate license is necessary for each process in respect of the same article: Ex. I. What is probably meant was that no separate fee is necessary, for under Section 287(3) a license is obliga...
Tag this Judgment!(Sheik) Hyder Sahib Vs. Sabjan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad560
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition to revise an acquittal. The lower appellate Magistrate found that accused 2 was in a house which was in the constructive possession of the petitioner in that petitioner after obtaining possession in due course of law had looked the house and gone out. But since this was not actual physical possession he found, following In the matter of Govind Prasad [1879]2 All.465, that there could be no annoyance and therefore no criminal house trespass. With the greatest respect I cannot accept the view expressed in In the matter of Govind Prasad [1879]2 All465, for it narrows the meaning of the section to ridiculous limits.2. Suppose a man locks up his house and goes for a walk; suppose he locks up his godown, and some one enters with intent to annoy or offand, is it to be said that there is no annoyance or offence, unless he was actually sitting in his house or godown?3. In fact the thief who has waited for the owner to depart could plead under Govind Prasad,...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Srinivasan and ors. Vs. Watrap S. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad100; 136Ind.Cas.193; (1931)61MLJ724
Curgenven, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to a Company known as the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute are briefly these. The Directorate of the Company is composed of two Policyholders' Directors elected by the policyholders and of a certain number of Shareholders' Directors. The ordinary general meeting for the election of Shareholders' Directors was fixed for the 13th October, 1930. The Articles of Association had contained a provision that the number of Shareholders' Directors should be six, and that two should retire in rotation, their places being filled by election at the meeting. But this number had been by amendment of the articles reduced to five, and it was provided, as a special case, that at the General Meeting of 1930 the six Directors should vacate office and that not more than five should be elected in place of them. At the meeting the 3rd defendant, who was at the time the Chairman of Direct...
Tag this Judgment!(Medipalli) Narayanappa Vs. Kuruba Hanumanthappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad32
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the plaintiff appellant sought to recover possession of a land from defendant 2; and he also asked for an order of injunction against him. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail.2. The plaintiff supported his claim on the basis of title and also possession. The property admittedly belonged to Sanjivappa. The plaintiff lived with him and continued in possession of his land and his house after his death till 1925 when he was dispossessed of the former by defendant 2. The plaintiff put forward a 'will'Which has been found to be a forgery by the lower Courts. Defendant 2 resisted the plaintiff's case on the ground that he has obtained a sale deed from defendants 3 and 4. Both the lower Courts have found that defendants 3 and 4 had no title to convey to defendant 2 and that he has not proved his title. The result is that neither the plaintiff nor defendant 2 has been able to prove his title but the plaintiff has succeeded in showing...
Tag this Judgment!Purushotama Ratho Vs. Brundavana Dass and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad597a
Ramesam, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to recover certain properties purported to have been sold by his guardian on 20th March 1919 under Ex. 1 for Rs. 800 to defendants 1 to 3 and 10. Defendants 4 to 9 are members of. an undivided family along with defendants 1 to 3, and defendants 11 to 13 form one undivided family with defendant 10. The District Munsif found that the sale was not binding upon the plaintiff and gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge differing from the District Munsif found that the sale dead was executed for necessity and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff files this second appeal.2. In second appeal plaintiff's advocate Mr. Jagannadha Das argues that there is no legal evidence in support of the necessity relied on by the defendants. But before I discuss this question it will be convenient to dispose of another point raised by Mr. Sambasiva Rao the learned advocate for the respondents as it arises first; in logical ...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvengadam Pillai and anr. Vs. P. Gnanasambandam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad97a; 136Ind.Cas.42
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They sued for a declaration that a mortgage (Ex. 1) executed by defendant 3, a Hindu widow, of her husband's lands in favour of defendant 1 was void as against the n, the husband's reversionary heirs. The husband died in 1896. In 1897 the widow executed a mortgage Ex. 6-f in favour of one Rangasami who was the father-in-law of defendant 2. This was for securing a loan of Rs. 2,000 and the instrument recites that the money was required to discharge debts due by her deceased husband. It appears that the widow later sold some plots of land from time to time and that the sale proceeds were used to reduce the amount of the mortgage debt due to Rangasami. Subsequently, the mortgagee's rights became vested in defendant 2, who brought a suit upon the mortgage against the widow. On 17th January 1913 defendant 2 obtained ex parte a preliminary decree for the recovery of Rs. 2,373-12-0 then due, together with interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 1,300, the balance...
Tag this Judgment!C. Doraisami Naidu and ors. Vs. Kanniappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad487
ORDERJackson, J.1. The eight petitioners have boon fined each Rs. 75 under Section 500, I.P.C., Rs. 300 being given in compensation to the complainant.2. It was complained that the petitioners conspired with one Abbey Naidu, the President of the Tiruvallur Union Board, and maliciously got up a petition to the effect that the complainant was suffering from leprosy.3. Under Section 55, Madras Act 14 of 1920, a person is disqualified for election as a member of a Local Board if such person is a leper; and the complaint suggests that the accused maliciously reported the complainant to be suffering from leprosy in order to disqualify him from nomination.4. Leprosy is not defined in the Act, which is a serious omission, because leprosy is not a scientific term and in popular usage it means either Elephantiasis Graecorum or Lepra Graecorum, that is to say, either a skin disease, or corrosive leprosy. The complainant had white marks on his foot. The accused called the attention of the Presiden...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arumugha Solagan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ265
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The question arising before us is whether the Notifications Nos. 175 and 177 of the Local Government, dated the, 22nd June, 1921, constituting a Sessions Division of West Tanjore and a Sessions Division of East Tanjore are infra vires or ultra vires of the Local Government. The doubt arises, because of the language of Section 7, Clause (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the latter part of which says:Every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district of consist of districts.2. Two alternative meanings have been suggested for this clause. According to one, the sentence merely lays down the relation between a sessions division and a district namely, that either a sessions division shall be equivalent to a district, or it shall be equivalent to a number of whole districts. The other interpretation is that a sessions division should be constituted out of a single district or a number of districts. In the latter interpretation a district is alread...
Tag this Judgment!(Chavali) Ramakrishnayya Vs. (Yeleswarapu) Soorayanarayana Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad224
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff should have been awarded his costs of the suit by the lower Courts. The plaintiff is a minor appearing by his guardian. In favour of the plaintiff represented by this guardian a promissory note was executed by the defendant. The guardian asked for the money. The defendant refused to give it unless he executed a security bond. As he refused to pay money this suit was instituted. The plaintiff has been given a decree for the amount, but has not been given his costs. Under Section 35, Civil P.C., costs are in the discretion of the trial Court, and unless a principle is involved on which the decision of the point is based, this Court very seldom interferes with the order made by the lower Courts. In this case both the lower Courts have come to the same conclusion. One of the reasons given by the appellate Court, that the guardian cannot give an effective discharge and therefore the defendant is entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Bagavathi Doss Bavaji, Dharmakartha of Sri Venkatesaperumal Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad536; (1931)61MLJ312
1. On this appeal being called on, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent as no appeal lay from the Land Acquisition Court, when that Court, as in this case, was constituted by the appointment of a 'Special Judicial Officer.' The objection is founded upon alternative arguments, viz., (1) either the Chief judge of the Small Cause Court who was the 'Special Judicial Officer' appointed in this case (see Local Rules and Orders, p. 84) is a persona designata so as to make the Court he constitutes fall within no general class from which appeal to the High Court lies, or (2) by virtue of the fact that the 'Special Judicial Officer' appointed was in this case the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, the Court he constitutes falls within the class of Small Cause Courts and accordingly in that case also no appeal lies to the High Court.2. In our view in this case 'the Court' within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act was constituted by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »