Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All97
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the decree-holder against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad to the following effect:As the judgment-debtor has applied under the Encumbered Estates Act in Benares (vide order of Collector) execution cannot proceed and is shelved. Certificate sent shall be withdrawn.2. This first appeal which was originally filed as a civil revision came before a Bench which recommended a reference to a Pull Bench which has now been made. The ground of the reference was that there was a decree passed in a partition suit in regard to properties belonging to a joint Hindu family and the decree directed the payment of a certain amount by one of the coparceners to another coparcener, and the question which arose was whether the amount which was to be paid constituted a debt within the meaning of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, Act 25 of 1934. On 25th May 1922, there was an agreement between the members of a very wealthy joint Hind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad605; (1932)63MLJ764
Reilly, J.1. This. Civil Revision Petition comes before us on the question what is the proper court-fee to be paid on the plaint in the suit concerned. In the plaint the prayers are for a declaration that the decree obtained by Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 302 of 1916 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Bhimavaram is void, for setting aside that decree, if necessary, and for recovery of the property, covered by the decree. The Plaintiff valued the suit for court-fee as if it came under Clause (c) of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The Defendants objected and said that in its nature this was a suit for the cancellation of the previous decree and that therefore the Plaintiff should pay court-fee under Section 7(iv-A) of the Act, i.e., under the new Sub-section introduced into the Act for this Presidency in 1922. The Subordinate Judge after hearing arguments on the question came to the conclusion that the suit was really one for possession of the property and therefore that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1943Mad602; (1943)2MLJ247
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the proceedings in Ordinance Case No. 1 of 1943 on the file of the Special Judge, Chingleput. The application involves the decision of the question whether Sub-section (1) of Section 3, of the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. XIX of 1943) embodies a valid provision of law.2. The petitioner and seven other persons were charged with having conspired to blow up the Uppanar Railway bridge near Shiyali and with having attempted to destroy the bridge. After their arrest the accused persons were brought before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Shiyali, who transferred the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram. Under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942 (Ordinance No. II of 1942), the Sessions Judge of Nega-patam was appointed by the Government of Madras the Special Judge to try the case. Subsequently the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ873
M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. By this petition the Rajah of Vizianagaram applies that the High Court may, in the exercise of its powers under the Letters Patent and such other powers it possesses, make an order restraining the Court of Wards from sending his minor children to Great Britain and if necessary, appointing some suitable person as their guardian. The circumstances in which this application came to be made, will appear from our preliminary order dated the 7th May, 1936, but for the sake of easy reference I shall briefly recapitulate them. Under Section 15 of the Court of Wards Act, the Local Government made a declaration that the petitioner was a disqualified proprietor and directed the Court of Wards to assume Superintendence both of his person and property. The Rajah immediately filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, impeaching the validity of the order made by the Government and praying for a declaration that it is ultra vires and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad410
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was heard by the Officiating Chief Justice (Rajamannar O. C. J. as he then was) and myself on 4th February 1948, and as we felt that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72: A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 775 which was followed by the learned trial Judge required reconsideration, we referred the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The order we then made is as follows :'We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 775, which has been applied to the case by the learned trial Judge in our opinion requires reconsideration.' The matter has accordingly been placed no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad115
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.S. No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for: (a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapalli temple as the1 Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement ; (b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumulapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsam, Wallu-vanad taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments; (c) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due; (d) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys, etc., in their possession or power; (e) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to pay damages f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad785; (1938)2MLJ189
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether a person who has lent money on a promissory note can sue to recover the debt apart from the note when the note embodies the terms of the contract with the borrower but is inadmissible in evidence owing to a defect in the stamping. In England the right to sue on the original consideration is recognised, and the same principle has been applied by some Judges in India, but Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the contract except the document itself, or secondary evidence where secondary evidence is admissible and other Judges have held that this section prohibits a suit on the original consideration. This Court, except in two cases to which I shall in due course refer, has held that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is a bar to a suit on the debt when the loan and the instrument are contemporaneous. Before turning to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1888)ILR15Cal109
Norris, J.1. On the 20th August, Hadjee Jackariah Mahomed & Co., through Mr. Hume, their attorney, applied to the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of Calcutta for warrants for the arrest of Ahmed Mahomed and Topun Ramchore on charges of cheating and abetment thereof.2. In support of the application, Noor Mahomed, a member of the prosecutor's firm, was examined on solemn affirmation. His deposition was as follows:I am a member of Hadjee Jackariah and Co. I have been a member of that firm since 1874. I know the first defendant Ahmed Mahomed. He is a boat owner. He has had business with us since 1879. He kept a floating account with us. The first defendant's ledger was kept by Topun Ramchore in my office. He used to make entries in the cash-book occasionally. When defendant No. 1 came to my office for money I used to ask defendant No. 2 to look at the ledger and say whether No. 1 had a credit balance. No. 2 always said he had credit balance. Day before yesterday No. 1 came t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal397,61Ind.Cas.82
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This Reference has been made in connection with an appeal by the tenants, defendants, in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent. One of the questions in controversy was, whether the defendants paid a consolidated rent for the tenancy, or whether they were liable to pay additional rent for increment of area as disclosed by recent survey over the area shown in the rent-roll of the landlords. The Revenue Officer and the Special Judge answered this question in favour of the landlords. On second appeal to this Court, the decision of the Special Judge was assailed on the ground that his conclusion was based upon an erroneous construction of Sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, That sub-section is in the following terms:When in a suit under this section, the landlord or tenant proves that, at the time the measurement on which the claim is based, was made, there existed, in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom370; (1932)34BOMLR780; 140Ind.Cas.164
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the three houses and the mango trees upon the land, the survey numbers of which are referred to in the judgment of the learned District Judge, belong to them and for recovery of possession thereof from defendant No. 2, and also to recover price of mango crops and damages from both defendants.2. The material facts are that one Sonia, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, became the occupier of the survey numbers referred to, upon which stood the mango trees in suit and upon one of which survey numbers, viz., 127, stood the three houses in suit, On the grant of the land to Sonia, Government did not reserve the trees under the power contained in Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in the year 1907 Sonia applied to the Collector for a kaul or lease of the trees, and the Collector replied that the trees had been declared to be of S...
Tag this Judgment!