Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad429; (1937)1MLJ440
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Two questions have been argued by Mr. Srinivasa Rao in this Revision Petition (1) whether the claim for assessment by the Municipal Council for the year 1930-1931 is barred by limitation and (2) whether the claim for the subsequent years 1931-1932 and 1932-1933 is illegal on the ground that the land is agricultural land. The lower Court held that the claim was not barred by limitation on the ground that notice of demand was served on the 18th March, 1931 and the suit was instituted within three years from the said date. The learned Judge took the view that under Section 345 the period of three years runs from the date on which distraint might first have been made. It seems to me that this view is unsound. Under Section 86 of the District Municipalities Act which governs this case, the property tax shall be paid by the owner of the assessed premises within 30 days after the commencement of the half year. So under this section the petitioner should have paid the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1937)1MLJ74
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The question raised in this reference by the District Magistrate of Ramnad is whether a Criminal Court is competent to direct that sentences of imprisonment imposed for default in payment of fines should run concurrently. The section that relates to this subject is Section 35 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the words of the section show that the direction can be given only in respect of sentences of imprisonment or transportation. The point appears to be covered by authority as will be seen from the decisions in Imperator v. Akidullah (1911) 15 I.C. 808, Emperor v. Sesha Rao A.I.R. 1926 Bom. 62, Shidlingappa Gurulingappa v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom416 and Emperor v. Gulam Ahamad (1929) 188 I.C. 224, the last three cases being rulings by Benches of the High Courts concerned. It follows therefore that the direction of the sub-Magistrate in this case awarding sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of the fines imposed by him is illegal and it is therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad344; (1937)1MLJ231
Horwill, J.1. The first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3 received subscriptions from the plaintiff for the conducting of a lottery, presumably advertised and conducted in the usual way. There can be no doubt, after Sesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyar (1935) 70 M.L.J. 36 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 562 that the father of defendants 2 and 3 would have been liable to refund to the plaintiff his subscriptions. The only question that arises in this petition is whether the defendants 2 and 3 are liable for this sum out of the joint family property that has come into their hands. The District Munsiff of Sivaganga has held that they are. Hence this Civil Revision Petition by defendants 2 and 3.2. The argument of the learned District Munsiff is in brief that the plaintiff's claim has no reference to an illegal contract and that as the father of defendants 2 and 3 was under a civil liability to return the money to the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are also liable for that debt. It seems to me that b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)1MLJ17
Pandrang Row, J.1. There is no dispute about the facts of this case. In fact, we have the admission of the defendant Railway Company itself that the act complained of was one performed by one of their officers. Paragraph 2 of the written statement of the Company, which has been extracted in full by my learned brother, is clear on the point. In substance, the Company admits that water in the stream swelled into a flood on account of heavy rains on 27th July, 1925 and rose so as to submerge the bridge and threatened to wash away the bridge and the railway lines, endangering the property and also the plaintiff's lands and that thereupon the Company's Permanent Way Inspector made an opening in the northern bank of the stream at a point within its own limits solely for the purpose of averting imminent danger to its property. In other words the Company's attitude was:We have done what is complained of, but we were justified in doing it and we did no wrong in doing it.2. That was the main def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad848
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The position arising in this civil revision petition can, I think, best be expressed as follows: A is the respondent here and B is his judgment-debtor. C is the petitioner here. C owed B some money secured on two mortgage bonds executed by C in favour of B. A sought to attach the debt to B owing on these mortgage bonds. C, the petitioner, objected to the attachment on the ground that B owed him a sum or sums of money which extinguished C's debt to B, and he further stated that this set-off had in other cases been recognized by the Court. He claimed therefore that he was entitled in these execution proceedings to have the question of that set-off considered. The learned Subordinate Judge relying upon some rulings which he does not refer to, says:The plea of discharge by the garnishee and its validity is not gone into in this execution proceedings, as according to the decided rulings it should not be investigated in the execution proceedings. The attaching decree-hol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad406; 169Ind.Cas.607
ORDERPandrang Raw, J.1. The question raised in this reference by the District Magistrate of Ramnad is whether a Criminal Court is competent to direct that sentences of imprisonment imposed for default in payment of fines should in concurrently. The section that relates to this subject is Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the words of the section show that the direction can be given only in respect of sentences of imprisonment or transportation. The point appears to be covered by authority as will be seen from the decisions in Imperator v. Akidullah, 15 Ind. Cas. 808 : 13 Cri.L.J. 536 : S.S.L. 256, Emperor v. Subba Rao Shesharao A.I.R. 1926 Bom 62 : 91 Ind. Cas. 543 : 27 Cri.L.J.111 : 27 Bom L.R.1351, Shidlingappa Gurulingappa v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom416 Emperor v. Ghulam Ahmad 118 Ind. Cas. 224 : A.I.R. 1929 Sind 179 : 30 Cri.L.J. 907 : Ind. Rul. (1929) Sind 192, the last three cases being rulings by Benches of the High Courts concerned. It follows, therefore, that the di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad434; (1937)1MLJ331
King, J.1. This is a suit brought upon a mortgage-deed of 1920 by the mortgagee to enforce his mortgage. The mortgagor is the first defendant. The other defendants are his two grandsons, defendants 2 and 3. In the mortgage-deed the property is described as belonging to the mortgagor himself but it has been found by the Court of first instance that the property mortgaged was really the joint family property of the mortgagor and his grandsons. The purpose for which the money was borrowed was recited to be to pay an advocate who was engaged to assist the police in prosecuting a man accused of having murdered the first defendant's son, who was also the father of defendants 2 and 3. Both the Courts have held that this was a purpose binding upon the joint family and have given a mortgage decree over the whole of the property, that is to say, including the shares of defendants 2 and 3 as well as the share of the first defendant.2. It is contended in this second appeal that this finding is wro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad882; (1937)1MLJ679
Varadachariar, J.1. My answer to the question referred is that the transaction does not constitute a lease within the meaning of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and is therefore effective though oral. The reasons in support of this conclusion have been set forth in the concluding portion of the judgment delivered by me when referring the question to a Full Bench and I have very little to add. The learned Advocate-General laid some stress on the fact that the decision in Zamindar of Polavaram v. Maharajah of Pittapuram (1930) 60 M.L.J. 56 : I.L.R. 54 Mad. 163 referred to by me in that judgment has since been reversed by the Judicial Committee in Zamindar of Polavaram v. Maharajah of Pittapuram (1936) 71 M.L.J. 347 : L.R. 63 IndAp 304 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 910 (P.C.). This does not affect the basis of my judgment, because, as I understand their Lordships' decision they do not express disapproval of the principle of law applied by the High Court in Zamindar of Polavaram v. Maharaja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad286
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners, who are 20 in number, and four others were convicted of an affray by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cheyyar and fined Rs. 10 each.2. The principal objections taken to the convictions are: (1) that the occurrence was not in a public place, and (2) that there was no breach of the public peace. The second point does not seem to have been raised in the Court below; in any case, there is no reference to it in the judgment of the Magistrate. With regard to the first point, the Magistrate expressed himself as follows:The scene of offence is an open field with no compound walls. It is a place where the public go no matter whether they have a right to go or not3. I think this is a correct and sufficient decision on the point raised. Whether a place is public or not does not necessarily depend on the right of the public as such to go to the place, though of course a place to which the public can go as of right must be a public place. The place where the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad533
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a claim by the plaintiff that he is entitled to some 55 cents of land out of what was purchased by defendant 1 in a rent sale held by the Zamindar on the footing that these lands also formed part of the pattah lands of defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff's main contention was that the lands really belonged to and had all along been in the possession of defendants 4 and 5 from whom he obtained them on transfer, but by some mistake of the zamin authorities the survey numbers relating to the holdings of defendants 2 and 3 on the one hand and defendants 4 and 5 on other have been inserted by mistake in their respective pattahs. There is no scope for the application here of the provisions of Sections 146 and 147, Estates Land Act, because it is not sought to bind the plaintiff by the result of proceedings taken against defendants 4 and 5. The trial Court found that the plaintiff's suggestion that the land really belonged to defendants 4 and...
Tag this Judgment!