Chennai Court July 1932 Judgments
Raghunatha Desikachariar Vs. Rangaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ575
Jackson, J.1. Suit by a ryot contesting the right of the landholder to sell his holding under Section 112, Madras Act I of 1908, for arrears of rent.2. It is not disputed that from 1919, or fasli 1329, the rent was enhanced by 2 annas in the rupee by mutual consent. Nor is it disputed that this enhancement was due to a rise in local prices and to repairs to the irrigation works. On the facts the landholder may or may not have had good grounds for a suit under Section 30 of the Act. But, could he, and this is the question, enhance the rent without a suit, and independently of the Act, by agreement with his tenant?3. Section 24, marginally described as 'Restriction on enhancement 'runs' the rent of a ryot shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act,' and then Section 30 provides for a suit to that end by the landholder. So far as we can discover from the Reports it has never been argued before a Bench, much less held, that Section 24 was otherwise than absolute and peremptory. I...
Tag this Judgment!Adam Hajee Peer Mahommed Essack Vs. Hajee Sukur Ganny
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad24; (1932)63MLJ565
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial Court and in the suit he claimed damages from the defendant for non-delivery of some bags of sugar. The defendant, the respondent here, was the seller of those bags which had been imported from Java and at the time of the sale lay in a bonded warehouse. The sale was effected on the 28th February, 1930 and on the next day the import duty on sugar was increased by Rs. 3 per bag. On that day the plaintiff demanded delivery of the sugar from the defendant and delivery was refused because the Customs House authorities refused to allow delivery to be given unless the increased duty in respect of the bags was paid. The sale was a sale of ready goods for ready delivery. Stone, J., has found as a fact that the sale was of goods in a bonded warehouse and there is ample evidence to support that finding--indeed, there is no evidence on the appellant's side to the contrary....
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Chingleput Municipality Vs. M. Murugesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad59; 140Ind.Cas.326
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These five appeals have been preferred by the Chairman of the Chingleput Municipality and arise out of five suits filed by him for a declaration that the defendants are liable to take annual licences in respect of their rice mills and for payment of licence fees under Section 249, Madras District Municipalities Act of 1920. The main plea of the defendants is that the suits are barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in a batch of former suits filed by them against the Municipal Council, Chingleput, represented by its Chairman, for a declaration that in respect of all these rice mills no annual license was necessary under Section 249 of the Act and for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Council from compelling the plaintiffs to take out licenses either by threat of prosecution or otherwise. Ex.1 is a certified copy of the judgment in the former suits. It is clear that the declaration and injunction asked for in those suits have been granted a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Ayyar Vs. S. Adinarayana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad54; 140Ind.Cas.582
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The mortgage decree was passed against the father and the son. It was provided both by the preliminary and the final decrees, that the father's interest in the properties mortgaged should be proceeded against first and only in the event of the decree still remaining unsatisfied, the son's interest should be sold. It is no use contending that a joint decree was passed; for the decree makes defendant 2's share in the property liable only when defendant l's share is found insufficient. Thus, the decree fixes the measure of defendant '2's liability although as Mr. Mahadeva Ayyar, for the appellant (the auction-purchaser) contends, neither is the proportion fixed nor is the actual sum specified. But the decree, all the same, makes it clear that the son's liability is only for the portion remaining due after the father's share is sold. I fail to see how the facts relied upon by Mr. Mahadeva Ayyar militate against the view that the extent of the son's liability is defin...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetty, Minor, by Guardian Valliamma Achi Vs. Al. Al. N. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ548
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, two questions have been raised and argued before me. The first question is whether the suit document, Ex. B, which has been admitted in evidence by both the Courts below as a hundi, is to be taken as sufficiently stamped and should be admitted in evidence and acted upon. The second question is whether this document is supported by consideration, or in other words, whether there is any legal consideration for it.2. As regards the admissibility of this document, it has to be stated that the wording of the document is such as would bring it either under the category of a promissory note or under a bill of exchange which includes a hundi. The Lower Appellate Court says that this document is warded in the way in which hundies are usually written. That seems to be the view of the first Court also. There is, however, no doubt that this document comes also within the definition of a promissory note. At best, it may be said that this is an ambiguous ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chilukuri Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.323; (1932)63MLJ670
ORDER1. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gudivada passed an order purporting to be under Sections 195-B and 476, Criminal Procedure Code, that the present petitioner should be prosecuted for perjury under Section 195, Indian Penal Code. He accordingly forwarded the records to the District Magistrate, Kistna, for taking action against the petitioner under the above section. It is hardly the procedure contemplated in the Code as revised in 1923 and the Sub-divisional Magistrate ought to have complained under Section 476 a point which was taken up on appeal to the District Magistrate who found that the Sub-divisional Magistrate's proceedings were practically a complaint and that the petitioner had not been in any way prejudiced. The point which is now taken in revision against the District Magistrate's order is not quite the same. It is now complained that the Sub-divisional Magistrate erred in not recording a precise finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an enqui...
Tag this Judgment!Naranappier Vs. Chidamabaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad96; 140Ind.Cas.600; (1932)63MLJ945
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Lower Court has made an order setting aside the sale of certain items under Order 21, Rule 90, and the appellant complains against that order. The point of law raised is, that the petitioner before the Lower Court has no locus standi under the rule in Question; in other words, that he is not a person ' whose interests 'are affected by the sale'. The property was sold in parcels and the decree-holder (the appellant before us) purchased lots 3 and 5 ; another, a stranger, purchased lots , 2, 4 and 6 and he has not appealed against the part of the order affecting him. The decree-holder alone has thus preferred this appeal and we are therefore concerned with the sale of only lots 3 and 5. The position of the applicant before the Lower Court (to whom I shall refer as the respondent) is this. Subsequent to the attachment which preceded the sale, he purchased certain items in lot 3 and certain other items in lot 2 with which we are not concerned. Thus, in regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetti Vs. A.L.A.L.N. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad765
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, two questions have been raised and argued before ma. The first question is whether the suit document, Ex. B, which has been admitted in evidence by both the Courts below as a hundi, is to be taken as sufficiently stamped and should be admitted in evidence and acted upon. The second question is whether this document is supported by consideration, or in other words, whether there is any legal consideration for it.2. As regards the admissibility of this document, it has to be stated that the wording of the document is such as would bring it, either under the category of a promissory note or under a bill of exchange which includes a hundi. The lower appellate Court says that this document is worded in the way in which hundis are usually written. That seems to be the view of the first Court also. There is however nodoubt that this document comes also within the definition of a promissory note. At best, it may be said that this is an ambiguous doc...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetti Vs. Al. Al. N. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.315
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, two questions have been raised and argued before me. The first question is whether the suit document, Ex-B, which has been admitted in evidence by both the courts below as a hundi is to be taken as sufficiently stamped and should be admitted in evidence and acted upon. The second question is whether this document is supported by consideration, or in other words, whether there is any legal consideration for it.2. As regards the admissibility of this document, it has to, be stated that the wording of the document is such as would bring it either under the category of a promissory note or under a Bill of Exchange which includes a hundi. The lower Appellate Court says this document is worded in the way in which hundis are usually written. That seems to be the view of the first Court also. There is, however, no doubt that this document comes also within the definition of a promissory note, At best, it may be said that this is an ambiguous documen...
Tag this Judgment!Kovuru Subbayya and ors. Vs. Peta Veeraya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ794
ORDERJackson, J.1. The point raised in this revision case is whether on behalf of the accused in an assault case the complainantcan be cross-examined by confronting him with a statement which the complainant made to the police when ' they were investigating a theft case, a case different from the case of assault. (This case of assault was not under investigation by the police.)2. A statement made to the police is as good evidence as a statement made to any other person save for certain exceptions to be found in the Evidence Act and in the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. In Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, it is laid down that a statement made to the police in the course of an investigation of an offence cannot be used as evidence at any trial in respect of that offence, with the proviso that such a statement may be used by the accused to contradict a prosecution witness.4. But when the statement has not been made in the course of investigating the offence in respect of which the tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »