Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1921
Reported in : (1921)41MLJ97
Ayling, J.1. The suit of which this appeal arises was brought by a minor Inamdar to declare that defendants 1 and 2, tenants under him, have no occupancy right in the Inam lands and to set aside an attachment of the said lands effected by 3rd defendant on the ground that they possessed such a right.2. The sole question is whether the suit lands form part of an 'estate' and whether plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 occupy the position of land-holder' and 'ryot' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If they do, Section 6 of the Act will operate to confer occupancy right on the defendants.3. The suit lands were originally ryoti lands situated within the permanently settled Zamindari of Surangi, which is an estate within the meaning of the Act: they were granted by the Zamindar after permanent settlement on a quit-rent payable to himself of Rs. 15 per annum. The grant is found, as a fact to include both varams.4. The learned Chief Justice has held that in consequence of the Ina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1921
Reported in : AIR1921Mad547; (1921)ILR44Mad677
Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a minor inamdar to declare that defendants 1 and 2, tenants under him, have no occupancy right in the inam lands and to set aside an attachment of the said lands effected by third defendant on the ground that they possessed such a right.2. The sole question is whether the suit lands form part of an estate,' and whether plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 occupy the position of 'landholder' and 'ryot' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If they do, Section 6 of the Act will operate to confer occupancy right on the defendants.3. The suit lands were originally ryoti lands situated within the permanently-settled zamindari of Surangi, which is an estate within the meaning of the Act: they were granted by the zamindar after permanent settlement on a quit-rent payable to himself of Rs. 15 per annum. The grant is found as a fact to include both varams.4. The learned Chief Justice has held that in consequence of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-02-1921
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR1132
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners applied to this Court for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Co-Revenue Authority to refer a case for the decision of the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act VII of 1918.The application was refused and the petitioners now ask us to grant them leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It has been contended for the opponents that no appeal lies from a decision of the Court refusing to make an order under Section 45.2. Section 48 says :-Every order under this Chapter shall be executed, and may be appealed from, as if it) were a decree made in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Section 49 says :-The costs of all applications and orders under this Chapter shall be in the discretion of the High Court.4. It would certainly appear at first sight that Section 48 only contemplated that orders directing an act to be done or forborne should be appealable as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-27-1921
Reported in : (1921)ILR43All606
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This case has been referred to us by a single Judge of this Court because of the difficulty of reconciling certain decisions to which we will refer hereafter in detail, particularly the cases of Muhammad Yasin v. Ilahi Bakhsh (1915) 13 I.L.R. 34 All. 545 and Mohammad Ismail Khan v. Mithu Lal (1912) 11 A.L.J. 649, on the one hand, and the case of Daya Kisken v. Mohammad Wasir Ahmad (1915) 13 A.L.J. 833 on the other hand. We have come to the conclusion that these cases are not, as they appear to be, irreconcileable, and that if the facts underlying each decision are clearly ascertained and stated, they present a complete and satisfactory code upon this somewhat controversial question. We have also come to a clear view as to which side of the line the present case lies when its facts are understood, and we propose to lay down certain propositions which we think are established by the existing authorities in this Court on this troublesome question, with the hope th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-22-1921
Reported in : AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-31-1921
Reported in : (1921)41MLJ547
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment about to be delivered and have nothing to add, to it.Ramesam, J.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on foot of a mortgage-deed dated 3-11-1896 for the recovery of the mortgage amount, by an assignee, from the heir of the mortgagee, Ayyasami Pillai. The main defence is that the mortgage was extinguished by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1898 and the proceedings in its execution. That suit was based on a prior mortgage dated 17-3-1896 'and Ayyasami was the 8th defendant therein. In his written statement (Ex. V c) he stated that he had no objection to the passing of a decree and prayed that the balance, after selling the property and paying off the amount due to the plaintiff might be paid towards his mortgage. The other defendants, in that case originally contested the suit but afterwards filed a. compromise petition (Ex. C) by which the amount to be decreed was determined and a compromise decree (Ex D) was passed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-1921
Reported in : AIR1922Mad337; 66Ind.Cas.566; (1921)41MLJ577
William Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. Petitioner in this case is the Village Munsif of Sivagiri in Erode Taluk and moves us to interfere in revision and quash certain charges framed against him by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Erode and all proceedings before that Officer connected with the charges. The charges run as follows:(1) That you being a Government servant, actively associated yourself in the movement of non-co-operation against Government by going with Mr. E.V. Ramaswami Nayaker of Erode to the Sivagiri shandy on 26th November 1920 and telling people there hot to vote at the elections of the 30th idem.(2) That you dissuaded and prevented people from recording their votes by making false representations both in the shandy on 26th November ,190 and at the polling station on 30th November 1920 and that the result of voting would involve the increase of taxes and the relinquishment of the voters' properties to those in favour of whom the votes were recorded etc.2. Mr. Adam the Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-09-1921
Reported in : AIR1922Mad34; 60Ind.Cas.90; (1922)42MLJ78
ORDER1. These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in the exercise of the High Court's powers of revision over the Judgment given by the District Munsif of Manamadura in certain Small Cause suits.2. Those suits were brought by the Rajah of Ramnad in a Small Cause Court to recover damages for the cutting of trees in the defendants holdings. The damages claimed amount to no more than a few rupees in each case. It is now alleged in an affidavit sworn to by a subordinate of the Rajah that the effect of our order will be to deprive the plaintiff of tirwa to the extent of Rs. 30,000 when the whole zamindari is considered. There is no counter affidavit and this statement therefore is not challenged. It is therefore urged that the order involves directly or indirectly, a claim or question of upwards of Rs. 10,000 in value.3. The reference in the Civil Procedure Code is evidently to questions arising between the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-09-1921
Reported in : 66Ind.Cas.686
1. These are pensions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in exercise of the High Court's powers of revision over the judgment given by the District Munsif of Manamadura in certain Small Cause suits.2. Those suits were brought by the Rajah of Ramnad in a Small Cause Court to recover damages for the Putting of trees in the defendants holdings. The damages claimed amounted to no more than a few rupees in each case. It is now alleged in an affidavit sworn to by a subordinate of the Rajah that the effect of our order will be to deprive the plaintiff of tirva to the extent of Rs. 30,000 when the whole Zamindari is considered. There is no counter affidavit and this statement, therefore, is cot challenged. It is, therefore, urged that the order involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question of upwards of Rs, 10,000 in value.3. The reference in the Civil procedure Code is evidently to questions arising between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-1921
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR16
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a rule granted at the instance of the Government of Bombay calling upon Balkrishna Govind Kulkarni, Editor and Publisher of the Shubhodaya newspaper at Dharwar, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of the publication of an article commenting on the proceedings in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee who were alleged to have extorted some money from a Bhangi.2. The article commences:-Proceedings have been instituted against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee for the alleged extortion of thirteen annas and the hearing commenced ten days back...The Police have appointed to conduct the case one of their inspectors who merely does what he is asked to do by the police and echoes them and earns his pay without any trouble. Every one in the town seems to be under the impression that the complainants voluntarily paid the fine and that the case owe...
Tag this Judgment!