Chennai Court November 1931 Judgments
Chintada Chittayya and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad377; 137Ind.Cas.30; (1932)62MLJ592
1. This Second Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench on account of a conflict between the cases reported in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. David Nadar : (1904)14MLJ433 and Brahmayya v. Pappctsetty. I.L.R. (1928) 51 M. 695 : 55 M.L.J. 33 We do not think it necessary to say more than that, in our opinion the first case which was not brought to the notice of the Bench in the second, was rightly decided. The second case proceeds on the misconception that the definition in Section 3, Clause (6) of the Madras General Clauses Act of 1891 applied to Regulation VII of 1828 or to Act II of 1864.2. Following the decision in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. David Nadar : (1904)14MLJ433 we dismiss the Second Appeal with costs (two sets)....
Tag this Judgment!(Elury) Suryanarayana Vs. Rajah of Vizianagaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad565
Cornish, J.1. The question for determination is whether the suit is a suit for money, and accordingly governed by Section 7, Clause 1, Court-fees Act, as held by the District Munsif, or whether it is a suit for accounts, and therefore governed by Section 7, Clause 4(f), as contended for by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff. The plaint prays for an account and for the payment of such sum as shall be found due to the plaintiff on the taking of an account. But a suit does not necessarily become a suit for accounts because the plaint asks for an account. The plaint must show that the defendant is an accounting party and that the plaintiff claims on the footing that an account has to be taken to ascertain the sum due to him. The plaint here sets out that plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a Revenue Inspector; that his superior officer made a complaint of his having misappropriated certain rent collections; and that under a threat of criminal prosecution and of losing his...
Tag this Judgment!Elury Suryanarayana Vs. the Raja of Vizianagaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.871
Cornish, J.1. The question (for determination is whether the suit is a suit for money, and accordingly governed by Section 7 Clause (i) of the Court Fees Act as held by the District Munsif, or whether it is a suit for accounts, and therefore, governed by Section 7 Clause iv(f) as contended for by the petitioner who is the plaintiff.2. The plaint prays for an account and for the payment of such sum as shall be found due to plaintiff on the taking of an account. But a suit does not necessarily become a suit for accounts because the plaint asks for an account. The plaint must show that the defendant is an accounting party and that the plaintiff claims on the footing that an account has to be taken to ascertain the sum due to him. The plaint here sets out that plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a Revenue Inspector, that his superior officer made a complaint of his having misappropriated certain rent collections, and that under a threat of criminal prosecution and of losing...
Tag this Judgment!Gangjee Premjee and Company Through Its Partner Devshi Munji Vs. O.L.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad352; 137Ind.Cas.740; (1932)63MLJ152
Reilly, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition relates to a creditor's insolvency petition presented to the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. That petition alleged a preferential transfer as the act of insolvency necessary to support it; but the date of that transfer according to the document representing it was more than three months before the date on which the insolvency petition was presented. So with their insolvency petition the creditors presented a petition to excuse the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That petition the Subordinate Judge dismissed. On appeal the District Judge, feeling himself bound by the decision of a Bench of this Court in A.A.O. No. 523 of 1925, held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to the case and reversed the Subordinate Judge's order and remanded the petition to excuse the delay for fresh disposal. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the transferee concerned against the District Judge's remand order.2. It was decided by a F...
Tag this Judgment!Lieutenant Srinivasa Rajamani Rajah Deo, the Rajah of Mandasa (Dead) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.331; (1932)63MLJ450
Reilly, J.1. The questions referred to us are(1) whether the High Court has power to interfere with a decision of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act,(2) whether the Board of Revenue has in this particular case exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it, and(3) what should be 'the final order to be passed in this case,' i.e., on this revision petition.2. It appears that under Section 164 of the Estates Land Act the Local Government ordered that a survey should be made and a record-of-rights should be prepared for 21 villages in the Mandasa Zamindari in the Ganjam district, which was done. On an application made by the ryots of the villages the Local Government afterwards ordered under Section 168 of the Act that a settlement of rent should be made for the villages. The Revenue Officer appointed for the purpose settled the rents for the villages. The ryots being dissatisfied, appealed against his orders to the Board of Revenue, which had been appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Goundar Vs. English and Scottish Co-operative Wholesale So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad145; 145Ind.Cas.412
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the English and Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Societies for the recovery of Rs. 1,387-13-7. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant executed two contracts under Act 1 of 1903, binding himself to work with a hundred coolies in the Mango Range Estate of the plaintiffs and received a consideration of Rs. 1,200 and further advances and way expenses of the coolies. The suit was for the recovery of the amount on the ground that the defendant failed to keep the required number of coolies in the estate. A schedule showing how the plaint amount was arrived at was also filed along with the plaint. The defendant contended amongst other things that the agreements were not supported by consideration, that the suit contracts were invalid and unenforceable and that the amount claimed in the plaint as due from him was not correct. The last point was covered by issue 8. As the District Munsif f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishnamachariar Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad256; 137Ind.Cas.571; (1932)62MLJ185
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is an advocate of this Court. He put in a claim to the Official Assignee for certain moneys due to him by the insolvent for work done for the insolvent in probate proceedings in respect of a will of which the insolvent was the executor and a legatee, and also for other work done by him on behalf of the insolvent. The Official Assignee disallowed a portion of the claim as excessive. There was an appeal against that order, and Mr. Justice Stone held that the claim of the appellant should be allowed in full with interest against the estate of the insolvent. The appellant impeaches that order on the ground that he was entitled to payment from the estate of the: testator, Appaswami Pillai, inasmuch as he was entitled to a lien on that property as having been recovered for the insolvent by his exertions in the probate litigation.2. With regard to the first part of this contention, it appears to us that it would not have been competent for the Insolvency Court, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Pattammal Vs. Ramayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad415
Waller, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover the amount due on a usufructuary mortgage deed executed by the defendant and her deceased aunt in favour of his brother. The consideration for the mortgage was to be the discharge of a prior mortgage evidenced by Ex. 1. Both parties claimed to have discharged it and the short point for consideration was which of them was telling the truth. The District Munsif was of opinion that the burden of proof was under the circumstances of the case on the defendant, though he added that the question of onus was one of merely academic interest, as both of the parties had produced all the evidence at their command. On a consideration of the evidence, ho accepted the case of the defendant and dismissed the suit. In appeal the District Judge held that the burden of proof was the other way and, after weighing, all the evidence on each side, found that the defendant had failed to discharge the burden and decreed the suit.2. In second appeal, it is...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganapathi Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ223
ORDERWallace, J.1. Petitioner seeks to have quashed the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Palladam, committing him for trial to the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, for offences under Sections 330, 343 and 348, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is a Village Magistrate and contends that the commitment is invalid for want of sanction under Section 197(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The allegation is that on a complaint put in to him by D.W. 6, brother of a woman called Ramakkal, wife of P.W. 2, petitioner sent for P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 at different times, had them brought by the village menials to the chavadi and shut them up there, and while they were there also tortured P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 by pushing needles under their finger nails in order to extort a confession of the murder. As a matter of fact, the woman had not been murdered and turned up later safe and sound. It is urged that as the Village Munsif has authority to arrest and confine suspected murderers, the alleged offences were committed by him 'whil...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathy Goundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad214
ORDERWallace, J.1. Petitioner seeks to have quashed the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Palladam, committing him for trial to the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, for offences Under Sections 330, 343 and 348, I.P.C. Petitioner is a Village Magistrate and contends that the commitment is invalid for want of sanction Under Section 197(1), Criminal P.C. The allegation is that on a complaint put in to him by D. W. 6, brother of a woman called Ramakkal, wife of P. W. 2, petitioner sent for P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 at different times, had them brought by the village menials to the chavadi and shut them up there, and while they were there also tortured P. Ws. 1 and 2 by pushing needles under their finger nails, in order to extort a confession of the murder. As a matter of fact, the woman had not been murdered and turned up later safe and sound. It is urged that as the Village Munsif has authority to arrest and confine suspected murderers, the alleged offences were committed by him while acting or purporting ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »