Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad482; (1939)2MLJ132
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision Petition raises a question of some importance turning on the effect of the proviso recently added in this Presidency to Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. Under that proviso, the Court to which an application under Rule 90 is presented may 'before admitting the application call upon the applicant to furnish security.' In the present case, the Court ordered the applicant to deposit the sale amount in cash. He tendered a draft bond offering immovable property as security. The Court declined to accept it and accordingly rejected the petition. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court and that Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case does not fall within the terms of Order 43, Rule 1(j) which gives a right of appeal against an order 'refusing to set aside a sale.' The learned Judge was of opinion that an order contemplated by this sub-rule was one passed after the Court had entertained the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad830; (1939)2MLJ236
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by a reversioner whose suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. He sued to recover possession of certain lands in Panayur village, Mannargudi Taluk, which admittedly formed part of the estate of one Appa Pillai who died in January, 1879, leaving considerable properties movable and immovable. At his death, Appa Pillai left two widows Thayyamuthu and Karoalathachi, a daughter Neelambal by his pre-deceased first wife, and another daughter Palanivelu by Thayyamuthu, the second of his three wives. Thayyamuthu and Kamalathachi the two widows who survived Appa Pillai died in 1887 and 1907 r espectively. Palanivelu died in 1908 and Neelambal the last of the intermediate limited owners died on 28th May, 1923. Neither of them has left any issue and the estate would devolve on the reversioners unless it had been validly disposed of in the meanwhile.2. The nearest reversioners according to the finding of the Subordinate Judge were A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad937; (1939)2MLJ585
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by Chinnayya Servai the first respondent to recover from, th.e appellant and ten other persons who were impleaded as defendants, the principal and interest clue in respect of a deposit made with a Nattukottai firm which carried on business at a place called Maubin in Burma. The deposit consisted of two sums placed in deposit on two different occasions, sometime after 1927. The vilasam of the firm in which the deposit was made was known as M.P.N. The firm was started in 1922 or 1923, by three partners, namely, Narayanan Chetty, Kadiresan Chetty and Chockalingam Chetty. Narayanan Chetty was the father of defendants 1 to 5; Kadiresan was the sixth defendant and the father of defendants 7 to 9, and Chockalingam was the tenth defendant and the father of defendant No. 11. At the date of the deposit Narayanan Chetty had died, but the business was being continued in fact. In the business so continued there is no doubt that Kadiresan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad491
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether a mortgagee of the share of a tenant-in-common is entitled to maintain a suit for partition. The plaintiffs claim to be the mortgagee under a deed of mortgage dated 12th April 1926 from one Kunhi Muhammad. By the said deed Kunhi Muhammad purported to mortgage all his rights in and to certain moveable and immovable properties which he obtained by purchase under a deed of sale dated 15th August 1919 from one Kadir Kunhi's son Ahmed and also his claim to certain chit moneys under a chit conducted by two stakeholders. The present action is for partition of certain items of property which Kunhi Muhammad obtained under the deed of sale. The properties comprised in the deed of sale related to a certain undivided share which the vendors Kadir Kunhi and his son were entitled to get in right of one Kochu Kathija in the estate of her father one Makkar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties formed part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad382; (1939)1MLJ414
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These are petitions to revise the order convicting and sentencing the petitioners, two in number, in C.C. Nos. 101 and 102 of 1937 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kavali. The petitioners have been convicted of defamation and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month in respect of both the cases. The petitioners as well as the complainants in the case are members of the fishermen community in Ponnapady Village, Kovur Taluk. It is admitted that when the Government put up for auction certain waste lands in the village, there was a general feeling in the community that no one should bid for these lands because if there were no bids the lands could be got for the community as a whole at a cheap rate. The complainants were not satisfied with this resolution of the community and they bid for the lands and obtained certain lands from the Government at the auction. The community then brought pressure to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad421; (1939)1MLJ588
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1931 the village of Ernavur was added to the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Board of Thiruvothiyur. The respondent company has a match factory in Ernavur and when the village came within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Board the factory buildings were assessed to house-tax the amount of the tax collected being Rs. 2,588-8-3. The respondent company challenged the validity of the action of the Panchayat Board and filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee to recover what it had been compelled to pay. The District Munsif held that the tax had been illegally levied and rejected the contention of the Panchayat Board that the suit did not lie because it had not been filed within the period allowed by Section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, as amended by Act XI of 1930. The District Munsif considered that the period of limitation imposed by that section only applied to suits for compensation or damages. The Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1940)1MLJ571
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two out of the 28 persons who were charged with a number of offences, namely, offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 427 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, in connection with an occurrence which took place at about 8 P.M. on the 14th November, 1937, in the village of Modekurru. There is no doubt that for some time before the occurrence there was a dispute between the villagers headed by the first petitioner, the Village Munsiff, and also to some extent by the second petitioner on the one side, and P.W. 1 the complainant on the other as regards a certain vacant site which had been purchased by the complainanjt1 about two years ago. The villagers claimed the site as part of communal land required and used for religious purposes, whereas the complainant claimed it to be private' land which he had obtained under a sale-deed. One or two attempts made by the complainant to build a house on the site proved fruitless...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad747
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two out of the 28 persons who were charged with a number of offences, namely offences punishable under Sections 148,149, 323 and 427 read with Section 114, I.P.C., in connexion with an occurrence which took place at about 8 P.M. on 14th November 1937 in the village of Modekurru. There is no doubt that for some time before the occur, rence there was a dispute between the villagers headed by petitioner 1, the village Munsif, and also to some extent by petitioner 2 on the one side and P.W. 1, the complainant on the other, as regards a certain vacant site which had been purchased by the complainant about two years ago. The villagers claimed the site as part of communal land required and used for religious purposes whereas the complainant claimed it to be private land which he had obtained under a sale deed. One or two attempts made by the complainant to build a house on the site proved fruitless on account of the obstruction offered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad400; (1939)1MLJ321
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the conviction of the petitioner by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, of an. offence punishable under Section 426, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are very simple. The complainant in the case and the. petitioner who was the accused occupy neighbouring houses which were apparently built recently one after the other, the accused's house having been completed earlier than the complainant's. The complainant appears to have arranged to plaster the parapet wall on the terrace of his house by erecting a scaffolding supported by poles inserted in his terrace but projecting several feet over the accused's land and put planks on the poles which projected over the accused's land to the extent of about 3 or 4 feet. The accused appears to have objected to this projection of the scaffolding over his land and asked that it should be removed, and when his request was disregarded, he is said to have cut the ropes of the scaffolding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)1MLJ466
1. The decree entitled the decree-holder to interest 'until the date of realization'. The learned District Judge has held that in a case like this, where the decree-holder has been given permission to bid and set off the date of realization is the date of sale. There is good authority for this in the case of Sait Punnamchand Chatraban Firm v. Vijjapu Satyanandam : AIR1933Mad804 and we think the learned District Judge was right in relying on that case. That was a case under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the language used by the learned Judges and the interpretation of Order 21, r. 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure which they have adopted, are of general application. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the words 'date of realization' in the decree mean the date on which the money is realized by the decree-holder, and he relies on Khalilur-Rahman v. Gokul Prasad I.L.R.(1919) All. 526 and A.S.N. Chettiar Firm v. Imperial Bank of India, Bassein A.I.R. 1937 Rang. ...
Tag this Judgment!