Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)2MLJ776
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an appellate order of acquittal and the undisputed facts are that on their way to investigate a case of house-breaking and theft, P.Ws. 1 and 11, the Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Sambatti found accused 1 to 6 gambling with dice and money in the Silvathinnai an open platform with roof used by the villagers like a village chavadi at Karisalpatti. Accused 7 to 10 were watching the game and the police officers hurried to the spot. The accused got down the Silvathinnai and P.W. 1 asked accused 1 to 6 to stop. P.W. 11 seized the dice and some cash from the Silvathinnai and accused 1 and 2 were asked their names. They refused to give their names and P.Ws. 1 and 11 caught them saying that they had been arrested. Accused 1 assaulted P.W. 1 and he struck accused 1 on the head with a lathi in self-defence. The other accused then attempted to rescue accused 1 and 2 by use of criminal force but P. Ws. 1 and 11 held them f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad18
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an appellate order of acquittal and the undisputed facts are that on their way to investigate a case of house-breaking and theft, P.Ws. 1 and 11, the Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Sembatti, found accused 1 to 6 gambling, with dice and money in the Silvathinnai an open platform with roof used by the villagers like a village chavadi at Karisalpatti. Accused 7 to 10 were watching the game and the police officers hurried to the spot. The accused got down the Silvathinnai and P.W. 1 asked accused 1 to 6 to stop. P.W. 11 seized the dice and some cash from the Silvathinnai and accused 1 and 2 were asked their names. They refused to give their names and P.Ws. 1 and 11 caught them saying that they had been, arrested. Accused 1 assaulted P.W. 1 and he struck accused 1 on the head with a lathi in self-defence. The other accused then attempted to rescue accused 1 and 2 by use of criminal force but P.Ws. 1 and 11 held them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad92; (1938)2MLJ977
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiffs, landholders under the Madras Estates Land Act, brought a suit under Section 77 of that Act for rent relying upon Sections 25 and 26 of the Madras Estates Land Act and claiming the right to demand rent at the faisal rate though in fact that no rent has been paid on the suit land so far as there is any record. It is common ground that the suit land has been held free of rent by virtue of a maintenance gift made before 1858 by one of the plaintiffs' predecessors. Both the lower Courts have held that Section 26 has no application to the circumstances of this case. The plaintiffs therefore appeal.2. So far as I am aware, there is no specific authority to support the appellant's case that Section 26, Sub-section (3) will apply, to a case in which the there has been a gift of land free of rent and not merely a grant subject to favourable terms with reference to rent. Mr. Venkatachari argues that if a landholder is not bound by the remissions of his predecessor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad5; (1939)1MLJ93
King, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput refusing to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant was the second judgment-debtor, the son of the first judgment-debtor. Notice of the execution petition was taken out to him as a minor represented by his father the first judgment-debtor as his guardian. At that time, it is now conceded, he was actually a major but that fact was not known to the Court nor according to its finding, to the decree-holder. The contention of the appellant be fore the learned Subordinate judge and again before us was that inasmuch as no notice was issued to him in his capacity as a major, the sale was altogether null and void. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon two rulings of this High Court reported in Tanguturi Jagannadham v. Seshagiri Rao (1916) 20 M.L.T. 479 and Rajagopala Aiyar v. Ramanujachariar (1923) 46 M.L.J. 104 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad429; (1939)1MLJ87
Burn, J.1. The lower Courts are in my opinion right. It is not, in my judgment, permissible for a decree-holder to extend the period of limitation by simply failing to re-present an execution petition returned for rectification. The proper way to deal with such a petition as that is to treat it as not having come into existence at all.2. In this case the Municipal Council having presented an execution petition oil 15th August, 1929, which was returned for some defect, waited till 14th August, 1932 and, then filed a new execution petition. Allegation was made that the Execution Petition of 1929 had been 'lost', but there was no pretence that the Execution Petition of 1932 was a revival or continuation of it. In fact, the Execution Petition of 1932 was not a revival or continuation of the Execution Petition of 1929 : it was a new petition altogether. Now I do not think that Municipal Councils should be encouraged to indulge in such dilatoriness and neglect as has been shown by the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad955; (1939)1MLJ306
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants and the respondents were claimants of money deposited in Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. They represented different branches of one family which owned originally certain lands handed over under Ex. XVIII to one Ramaswami Aiyar the ancestor of the respondents, who was to perform certain charitable trusts and keep any surplus which there might be after the performance of those trusts. The lands now acquired by the Government consist of a portion of the land covered by this dedication; another portion has been previously acquired and out of the proceeds arrangement has been made for the income necessary to carry out the trusts. The respondents as descendants of the original manager of the trust claimed an exclusive right in the proceeds of the present acquisition. The appellants on the other hand claimed that they were entitled to a share. The trial Court went into the matter and decided that the appellants were not entitled to any share ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad979; (1938)2MLJ642
Varadachariar, J.1. In these revision petitions, the petitioner challenges the validity of four orders passed by the lower Court granting leave under Order 2, Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code, to the plaintiff to omit the claim for certain reliefs, in the circumstances to be presently mentioned. The orders have been questioned on two grounds (i) that the Court had no power to grant leave at the stage at which the applications were made, and (ii) that the circumstances alleged in the application for leave did not justify the grant of leave. The latter question relates to the exercise of the discretion which is vested by law in the lower Court and except in very exceptional circumstances, it is not proper for a Court of Revision to interfere with the way in which the lower Court has exercised its discretion. In the present case, I do not see sufficient reason for interfering with that exercise of discretion.2. The question as to the power of the Court to grant leave at the stage at which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)2MLJ647
Pandrang Row, J.1. The point raised in this petition is that decided in Sadasivam Pillai v. Varadaraja Odayar : AIR1937Mad325 . In that case Venkataramana Rao, J., purported to follow a previous decision, namely, that of Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Lakshmana Aiyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar : AIR1935Mad927 . The point is whether when a Court has passed a judicial order fixing the correct court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal it is open to that Court to revise it afterwards either at the instance of a party or of its own motion. This question was answered in the negative in the cases referred to above and I see no sufficient reason for not following those decisions. It is urged however by Mr. Sitarama Rao that the word 'final' found in Section 12(1) of the Court-Fees Act is capable of the meaning that there should be no appeal from that order and not that it shall not be open to review by the same Court which made the order. This argument does not appear to have been put forward in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad37; (1938)2MLJ822
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the enhancement of maintenance ordered to a Hindu widow by a decree of the year 1899. The original rate of maintenance Was Rs. 10 per mensem. The Courts below have raised this figure to Rs. 50 per mensem, allowing also a lump sum for pilgrimage not provided for in the original decree and another lump sum for the replacement of worn out utensils. The lower appellate Court differing from the trial Court allowed arrears only from the date of the trial Court's decree instead of arrears from the date on which payment under the earlier decree had ceased. This question of the date from which arrears are to be paid forms the subject-matter of the memorandum of cross-objections.2. There are findings of fact, into which it is unnecessary ;for me to enter, that in the interval from; the 1st decree of 1899 to the date of the present suit, the income of the family; property had arisen from Rs. 1,100 a year to a little over Rs. 7,000 a year, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad976; (1938)2MLJ843
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam ordered a complaint to be made against the petitioner on the ground that certain crops which were already attached on 26th September, 1936, under the orders of the Court were harvested by him on or about the 8th of October in that year. The Court relying mainly on the order of attachment and the receiver's report held that a prima facie case was made out under Section 206, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and ordered a complaint to be filed against him under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge was perfunctory and did not seem to comply with the requirements of the section. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge who tried to read into the order things which were not mentioned there. He however came to a distinct finding that the prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice. The petitioner has now come up in revision.2. It appears to...
Tag this Judgment!