Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad461; (1937)2MLJ386
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in an execution application. It will be seen from the geneological table that originally there were five branches of the family and they may be referred to as the first, second, third, fourth and fifth branches, the appellants' branch being the third. It is only necessary to add that Venkatarayanim Garu had four sons, Ramarayanim Garu one son and Bhavannarayanim Garu four sons whose names appear as signatories to Ex. H, a power-of-attorney. The first respondent by his execution application sought to attach some immovable property as being the separate property of Dharma Rao, the third branch. The appellants contend that their father Surya Rao alias Kasibabu and his brother Dharma Rao were undivided and that the properties of Dharma Dao devolved on them by survivorship and are not liable for the simple debt of Dharma Rao against whom the respondents have obtained a decree on a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad214
Varadachariar, J.1. This case has been posted before this Bench in consequence of a contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Full Bench In Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Raja (1902) 25 Mad 300 should not be followed after the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar . The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a jenmi for redemption of properties in the possession of the Kanomdar. Various objections were raised, of which it is necessary to refer only to those raised by issues 1 and 3.2. Issue 3 was framed with reference to what happened in O.S. No. 670 of 1923 on the file of the Ponani Munsif's Court. That suit was instituted by the assignee of a melcharthdar, who is defendant 17 in the present suit. A decree for possession was passed in that suit conditional on payment of a certain sum of money for compensation for the improvements effected by the tenant. The decree-holder, however, did not care to deposit the amount and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad311
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners, the President and members of Congress Committee, have filed these petitions to revise the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam forbidding the holding of Congress meetings within a furlong of Easwarankoil in the Brahmin Agraharam of Gobichettipalayam town. It is conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Subdivisional Magistrate was wrong in holding that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate because the petitioners had approached the Sub-Magistrate and asked him to rescind his ex parte order. Section 144 contains no provision which suggests that a superior Magistrate is prohibited from rescinding or altering an order merely because a Subordinate Magistrate has done so or refused to do so. It has already been held by Pandrang Row, J. in Mooka Pandaram v. Sinnu Muthirian AIR 1937 Mad 167 that it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad364
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. In my view, this Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs although that result is reached by coming to a different decision upon the point of limitation to that reached by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to have been conceded in the lower Court that the promissory note, Ex. B, was insufficiently stamped and the suit was not brought upon the promissory note at all. The only use to which it was put at the trial was as an acknowledgment of his debt to remove the bar of limitation which otherwise was obviously in the way of the claim, the amount sued for having been due on 30th November 1929 and the suit filed on 10th March 1934. The learned trial Judge held that although the note should not be used as a promissory note, it could nevertheless be used as an acknowledgment of the defendant's liability for the debt sued upon and he relied upon the decisions in Vancheswara v. Narayana : AIR1933Mad251 and Rakkappan v. Suppiah : AIR1930Mad485 .2. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 169Ind.Cas.452
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 129 of 1936 was prosecuted under Schedule IV, Rule 33 of the Madras Local Boards Act, for non-payment of taxes. The Sivaganga Bench Court found that he was liable to pay such assessment as had been demanded of him before the Panchayet Board had increased it, and ordered him to pay at the rate for three years and to pay a fine of five rupees. One amount claimed by the Panchayet Beard was disallowed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and another on the ground that as no proper notice had gone to the petitioner, the rent could not be enhanced. In appeal the order of the Bench Court was confirmed. Two revision petitions have been filed, one by the Sivaganga Panchayet Board regarding the amount disallowed and the other by the accused, in which he raises a number of technical pleas.2. The pleas raised in Criminal Revision Case No. 129 of 1936 seem to be the same as those raised in the name of appeal by the accused an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 167Ind.Cas.490
Varadachariar, J.1. The point arising for decision in these petitions is whether the holder of a pre-settlement inam in a zemindari can under any and, if so what circumstances, be dealt with as an 'intermediate landholder' from whom the zemindar can claim to recover the whole or a portion of the case paid by the zemindar to Government under Section 88 of the Madras Local Boards Act.2. So far as we are able to gather from the materials now before us, the inam to which these petitions relate seems to have been granted long prior to the permanent settlement and in some of the reports filed in the case the purpose of the warn is described as 'Veeti Koluvu' This expression has not been very much elucidated either by the translation of it in Brown's Dictionary or by the translation adopted by the District Munsif. We prefer to leave it in vernacular form so that the matter may be better investigated by the lower Court to which we are remanding these cases. It appears from the evidence-and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1937)1MLJ189
Varadachariar, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of suits in ejectment instituted on behalf of a minor whose estate is under the Management of the Court of Wards. The questions of fact arising in the case are concluded by the concurrent findings of the Courts below.2. The only question of law raised in these second appeals is that referred to as Point No. 1 in paragraph 2 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, namely, whether in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Court of Wards Act, these suits are maintainable in the absence of express sanction from the Court of Wards.3. I may at the outset state that I am not by any means satisfied that the provisions of Chapter VI of the Court of Wards Act are provisions which third parties can take advantage of. They are primarily meant for the benefit of the ward and not for the benefit of third parties, though some of them may impose restraints upon third parties in the interests of the ward. The provision in Section 52 can by no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad270; (1937)1MLJ264
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application made under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside a court sale. The application was made by three petitioners, of whom the petitioner was the third petitioner before the Subordinate Judge. The other two petitioners were the purchasers of two lots of the property sold, namely, lots 1 and 3.2. The facts are briefly these. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 109 of 1927 in which the petitioner was the only defendant, four items of property were ordered to be sold. The first petitioner in the lower Court purchased the first lot for Rs. 1,000 which was deposited by him. Lot 2 was not sold. The second petitioner purchased the third lot for Rs. 800. He also deposited the money into Court. Lot 4 was purchased for Rs. 1,005 by the decree-holders who were minors represented by their next friend. Pending confirmation of the sale the 3rd petitioner (that is, the judgment-debtor-petitioner) privately sol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad496; (1937)1MLJ422
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit has been brought to enforce a simple mortgage granted to the plaintiff on 8th January, 1916 (Ex. A) by the first defendant and his father, the late Zamindar of Neduvasal to secure the re-payment of Rs. 8,300. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee under two earlier deeds executed in his favour on 16th December, 1910, for about Rs. 86,000. The suit mortgage comprises six villages, of which four have been subsequently sold by the first defendant and his father to the second defendant by Ex. F dated 14th August, 1919. The latter by Ex. H dated the 1st June, 1925, conveyed his interest to defendants 3 to 5 reciting in the deed that the original purchase was intended to be on their behalf.2. The only persons contesting the suit are defendants 3 to 5. The first defendant, it may however be stated, originally filed a defence, but subsequently not only withdrew it but admitted the plaintiff's claim.3. The villages in question are pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad321
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Nellore dated 13th July 1936 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1936 in which the two appellants were charged with murder but were convicted as follows: Appellant 1 Under Section 326, I.P.C., and appellant 2 Under Section 201, I.P.C. Appellant 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and appellant 2 to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The charges relate to the killing of one Subbi described by the learned Judge as 'a buxom wench of 22 years', who though married and living with her husband, was said to have been kept by appellant 1, Subbaramayya for some years prior to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge observes that appellant 2 also was one of those to whom the deceased was distributing her favours but there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to support this view. It is, however, established that appellant 2 and appellant 1 are friends and used to move together. The dead body of Su...
Tag this Judgment!