Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-31-1941
Reported in : AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties' in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit;' and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1941
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR295
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for a declaration that the suit property consisting of land with buildings thereon was of the absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, from taking vacant possession of the land after removal of the superstructures. An alternative relief was also prayed that if it be held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the land under a lease of ninety-nine years, the Government should fix a reasonable amount for rent after the expiry of the lease but not take forcible possession of the same.2. The land in suit is situated in a prominent locality in the city of Ahmed-abad. Its present survey number is 4663 corresponding to old city survey Nos. 123 and 235 of L. Tikka No. 3 in the Raikhad ward of Ahmedabad city. Its area is 642 square yards. The plaintiffs' case in substance was that this lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-1941
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR158
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the Assistant Judge of Satara. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the charge created by a registered compromise decree dated January 15, 1935, between defendant No. 1 Narayan and defendant No. 2 Dattatraya on certain house property is subject to the prior charge on the same property created by an unregistered decree on an award dated June 28, 1932, between the plaintiff and the said Dattatraya.2. The dispute has arisen in this way. The second respondent Dattatraya owed a certain sum of money to the plaintiff Krishnaji and his cousin, and upon a dispute arising as to the extent of the liability of the said Dattatraya it was referred to arbitration and an award decree was passed thereupon on June 28, 1932. By that award decree a charge was created on a house bearing No. 208A situated at Karad. This is the clause in that decree relating to the charge:-A charge in respect of the whole amount claimed in the suit is c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-1941
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR834
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court. The accused was charged under Section 128 of the City of Bombay Police Act with having disobeyed an externment order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police under Section 27(2A) of the Act. The accused admitted the making of the order, its service upon him, and his return to Bombay within the time prohibited by the order. But the learned Magistrate, quite rightly, refused to accept a plea of guilty, without considering the question whether the externment order passed by the Commissioner of Police was a valid order. He held that it was not a valid order and accordingly acquitted the accused.2. Sub-section (2A) of Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act was added by amendment in the year 1936, and is in these terms:(2A). It shall be further competent to the Commissioner of Police to direct any person who, not having been born in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-25-1941
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR926
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a petition intituled In the matter of immoveable property situate at Navrangpura and In the matter of Ratanji Ramaji and others, all minors. It sets out that the petitioner is the karta of a Hindu joint family, and that the coparcenary property is vested in him, his minor sons and grandsons and his brother and minor sons of his brother, all the minor coparceners being mentioned in the title of the petition. Then the petition sets out the property of the family, and alleges that certain debts have been incurred by the petitioner as karta on behalf of the joint family, the debts amounting approximately to Rs. 10,000. Then it is alleged that an offer has been obtained for the purchase of one item of the coparcenary property, being that mentioned in the title, for a sum of Rs. 66,000 odd, which is alleged to be a very good price, and that the purchaser in the contract has stipulated that the petitioner as guardian of the minors should obtain the necessary sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-11-1941
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR251
Chagla, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for setting aside an ex parte order made by Mr. Justice Kania on July 28, 1941,. and for setting aside the service of the writ of summons effected pursuant to the said Judge's order upon the defendants as representing all other members of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of this Court, for damages for wrongful termination of his services by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society. The object of this society, as apparent from the rules which have been put in, is to provide any member of the society with legal assistance for his defence in the event of his being prosecuted for an offence or offences, under the Indian Railways Act or the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him and arising out of and in the discharge of his duties, or of actions believed to be within the scope of his du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1941
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR183
Russell, J.1. The only question which their Lordships have to determine in this appeal is whether the properties of the Baidyanath temple were vested in trust in the high priest of the temple within the meaning of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX) of 1908. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the appellant's suit is not barred by any length of time and this appeal must succeed.2. The suit was brought in the name of the deity of the temple, through the present high priest, against respondent No. 1 (who is the widow and executrix of the late high priest), to recover from her the principal moneys amounting to Rs. 4,200 due on certain war bonds (which formed part of the temple properties, but were retained by the widow as such executrix), together with a sum of interest thereon amounting to Rs. 2,577-8-0.3. The suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar who, on June 28, 1935, ordered and decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the widow R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad713; (1941)2MLJ834
1. This is an appeal from the order of the' learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram dismissing an application by a transferee decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 16 to recognise the transfer of the decree in his favour and to execute it against the judgment-debtor's property. The decree that was transferred was a decree for costs in favour of an undischarged insolvent. He obtained the decree after the order of adjudication under the following circumstances. The order adjudging the transferor insolvent was passed in 1923. On a mortgage executed by him before the adjudication a suit was instituted in 1927 being O.S. No. 1 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram. An ex parte decree was passed against him and he sought to set aside that decree. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the application dismissed it on the ground that he had no right to present the application because he was an undischarged insolvent and the right to redeem vested in the Official Receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-01-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad817; (1941)2MLJ125
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These petitions relate to the petitioner's claim to recover his costs, etc., in Privy Council Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1933 in which a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 26,302-3-6 passed in favour of the petitioner was upheld by His Majesty in Council on the 26th September, 1936.2. The petitioner applied in C.M.P. No. 949 of 1939 in the lower Court for a final decree for the balance of the amount due under the preliminary decree after giving credit for amounts paid from time to time by the respondent judgment-debtor, and the latter filed LA. No. 506 of 1938 to scale down the decree under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Both these applications were dealt with together and the learned Subordinate Judge finding that sums already paid by the respondent amounted to more than twice the principal amount of the debt after adjusting such payments towards all costs decreed to the petitioner including the costs now claimed dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-19-1941
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ883
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether a payment made after partition by a member of a Hindu family of interest due on a promissory, note which was executed by the managing member when the family was joint starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family, the payment having been duly, acknowledged by the person who made it, There are conflicting decisions of this Court and it is for this reason that this appeal has been placed before a Full Bench for decision.2. The facts present no complication. On the 12th March, 1925, the appellant's father, one Thiruvenkatachariar, and his youngest son Srinivasachariar, executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,384 in favour of one Gnanatnbal Achi. Thiruvenkatachariar had three sons, and at the time of the execution of the promissory note the family was joint. It is common ground that the debt was incurred for a family necessity. On the 25th March, 1925, the father die...
Tag this Judgment!