Chennai Court March 1931 Judgments
Chinna Vel Naick Vs. Venkatarama Naick and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad19; (1931)61MLJ541
Jackson, J.1. The sole point for determination in this second appeal is whether E.P. No. 522 of 1927 is an application in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution. The facts leading up to this essential point are stated by the District Munsif in his fourth paragraph.2. The application is to bring on to the record the heir of the 2nd plaintiff, and the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, and then to realize the decree on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. Apparently it was alleged in the body of the application that the 1st had obtained an oral transfer of the right of the 2nd plaintiff, and since decrees cannot be orally transferred the E.P. was finally dismissed as invalid. It is, therefore, argued by the appellant that there was no application in accordance with law. But it must be noted that apart from the transfer the 1st plaintiff had his own right under the decree and was entitled to apply to the proper Court to have the nec...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ramaswami Aiyar and anr. Vs. M.A. Rangaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad683; (1931)61MLJ933
Reilly, J.1. These petitions relate to a suit in which the District Munsif of Calicut made a preliminary decree for the administration of the estate of one Rama Pattar on a creditor's plaint. After that preliminary decree was made, two other creditors put in claims against Rama Pattar's estate. The District Munsif has ordered that on those claims they must pay ad valorem Court-fee as if they were plaints. These revision petitions are against those orders.2. It will he noticed that we are not concerned here with the question what Court-fee should be paid by a creditor who institutes an administration suit. The question is what Court-fee, if any, should be paid by another creditor who comes in with a claim after a preliminary decree for administration has been made in such a suit. The learned Government Pleader has admitted that there is no explicit provision in the Court Fees Act requiring any Court-fee to be paid on such a claim. But he has suggested that we should treat such claims as...
Tag this Judgment!(Puthiyakatu) Kunhammayan and ors. Vs. (Eachali) Nalakath Kunhi Sow an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad169; 145Ind.Cas.758
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by plaintiff 1, as the assignee of plaintiffs 2 and 3 of their jenm rights under Ex. B and of their rights under the marupat Ex. A, to recover the suit property which is a shop from the three defendants or whichever of them who may be found by the Court to be in possession. To understand the position of the other defendants in the case we must go to the earlier history of the Cheeramoolayil Pookkoth tarwad of which defendant 2 is now the karnavan. The suit property originally belonged to one Kutti Acha, a member of the Cheeramoolayil Pookkoth tarwad and after her death it has become the property of the Cheeramcolayil Pookkoth tarwad. This was not originally admitted by the present plaintiffs, but the lower Courts have now found it and the plaintiffs do not question this finding before me now. After the death of Kutti Acha, her son Kunhikutti Ali became the karnavan of the tarwad. He died in November 1912 while on...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Muhammad Rowther Vs. Sundara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad608
Jackson, J.1. The short point in this petition is whether the lower Court acted irregularly in refusing to review its predecessor's order which is alleged to have contained an error on the face of its record. This error was never perceived by the petitioner, until the actual hearing which in itself goes to belie that it was 'on the face of the record.' It lay in the Court departing from the pleadings in a petition under Section 48, and allowing the petitioner to prove a fraud that he had not pleaded. This in my opinion would be an error, but not an error on the face of the record. It was a matter which might have been taken up on appeal; but no appeal was preferred. Review is not exactly a substitute for appeal. I therefore decline to interfere. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!K. Dholiah Vs. Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad702
Sundaram Chetty, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate,. Coonoor, under Section 182, I. P. C, imposing. on him a fine of Rs. 25. The Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of this case on a complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police against the accused,. In that complaint it is alleged that the accused gave false information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wellington, that three persons, namely, P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5, had broken the seal and lock of a temple in Karteri and entered into the temple. After some investigation, the police reported to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate that the case was false. Thereupon, the. present accused pressed the same complaint before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Coonor, requesting the Court to make a judicial investigation of the charge. Subsequently the Magistrate discharged the accused persons in that case under Section 253 (2), Criminal P. C, findin...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarathnammal Vs. Seshachalam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad773; (1931)61MLJ219
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner here is the mother of an illegitimate minor son and she has presented this petition praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent to hand over the custody of that child to her. The child was born on the 11th April last year. It would appear that the petitioner had been living as the respondent's mistress for some two or three years in the respondent's house in which also the respondent's wife lived. The latter was incapable of bearing any children. There had been previously born to the petitioner two other children both of which died in very early infancy. After the birth of this child the petitioner went to Mysore, it is said, in order to visit her sister who was very ill; and she alleges that she was prevented by the respondent from taking her child with her, and upon her return to Madras early in July that he has refused to hand over to her this child. Accordingly she has presented this petition for ...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajah of Vizianagram Vs. Padala Appalaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad714; (1931)61MLJ434
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned District Judge has, upholding a preliminary objection, dismissed the appeal of the landholder (the Rajah of Vizianagram) as being incompetent. The question is, whether his order is correct or not. The proceedings started before the Collector, by certain ryots, filing an application under Section 135 of the Estates Land Act, stating that the tank of their village was out of repair and that the landholder failed to restore it to efficiency and praying for the issue of an order under Section 137 for the repair of that tank. The Collector, holding that the landholder had grossly neglected his duty, made an order under Section 137, directing him to carry out certain repairs to the tank and take certain other steps within six months of the date of that order. It was against this order that the landholder filed an appeal to the District Court, which, as I have said, was rejected on the ground that it does not lie. Under Section 142, from any order issued by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Sethupathi Ambalam Vs. Andiappan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad717; (1931)61MLJ424
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. In O.S. No. 414 of 1928, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur, the plaintiff obtained the following decree, on 18th December, 1929:(1) 'That the defendant do put the plaintiff in possession of the property specified in the schedule: hereunto annexed.(2) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 60 on account of mesne profits which have accrued due prior to the institution of the suit, and do also pay future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60 per year from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder or the relinquishment of possession of the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court or the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event occurs earlier.(3) That the defendant do pay plaintiff's costs Rs. 45-2-0 and do bear his own Rs. 24-8-0.2. The decree-holder applied in E.P. No. 615 of 1930 on 23rd September, 1930, for execution of the decree so f...
Tag this Judgment!Gadde Sitayya and anr. Vs. Gadde Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad71
Curgenven, J.1. These four appeals are from decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kistna in four connected suits. There were three brothers, Kotayya, Nagayya and Gangayya, of whom Gangayya died in November 1918, while Kotayya and Nagayya survive. In 1910 they divided their property, each thus becoming possessed of 10.10 acres. It appears that thereafter Nagayya and Gangayya lived together, and they jointly entered into a mortgage of their property which formed the subject-matter of the decree against them in O. S. 378 of 1916 on the file of the Ellore District Munsif's Court. Gangayya died shortly afterwards and execution was taken in respect of the whole property against Nagayya. There was a Court sale which was successfully impeached, and when the property was brought to sale a second time it was privately purchased by one Sitayya for a sum of Rs. 6,500 and the Court sale was averted by a deposit Under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C. In O.S. No. 95 of 1922, to which A. S. No. 260...
Tag this Judgment!D. Seshadri Aiyangar Vs. Thambu Narasimhachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad532; 140Ind.Cas.28
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Chingleput. The plaintiff, the appellant, is a raiyatwari wet landholder in the village of Naraiambakkam, Chingleput District. His lands are along the foreshore of: the Government irrigation tank called Chitteri in Malayankulam. They are situated at such a level that they are liable to submersion and are submerged for sometime whenever the Malayankulam tank is up to its full tank level. The plaintiff sues the Secretary of State and pattadars under the tank for a declaration that they have no right to submerge the lands and for an injunction to restrain them from doing so. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. The Chitteri tank is supplied by a channel from the Cheyyar river which enters at the north-west of the tank at a point D in the plaint plan. On the south of the tank is a cross-bund separating it from the Periyeri of the same village. In the cross-bund is an opening or sluic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »