Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1927
Reported in : (1927)53MLJ131
Ramesam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed before the Village Panchayat Court of Bezwada to recover Rs. 21 and odd. The suit was based on two documents, Exhibits A and B, dated 2nd February and 13th January, 1923 respectively. The Panchayat Court found that these two documents ought to be stamped with a stamp of three annas each and collected Rs. 5-3-0 for each document, consisting of three annas for stamp and five rupees for penalty, and decreed the claim. There was a revision petition to the District Munsif's Court of Bezwada under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act (I of 1889) . The District Munsif held that the Village Court could not levy penalty in respect of a promissory note. He construed Exhibits A and B to be promissory notes and that the suit failed as it was based on unstamped promissory notes. He also held that the village panchayat exercised jurisdiction not vested by law or otherwise acted illegally, and reversed the decision of the Panchayat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-21-1927
Reported in : AIR1928Cal1
Rankin, C.J.1. This suit was instituted in January 1925 for the recovery of about seven and half lakhs of rupees as damages for a variety of acts done by the defendant company. It was stated in the plaint that no part of the cause of action arose before February 1922.2. The plaintiff towards the end of 1921 bought a large quantity of Gold Flake cigarettes on the terms that they should not be sold in Great Britain. The goods were two years old, they were made up in packets or cartons of tin, and 25,000 cigarettes in their cartons were packed in a strong tin-lined case. This brand of cigarettes is very well known as : having originally been the manufacture of W.D. & H.O. Wills, of Bristol whose successors in business are.the British American Tobacco Company Limited. The goods so bought by the plaintiff had (under a temporary arrangement necessitated apparently by the war) been manufactured in America and were part of a very large number of cigarettes which had originally been intended fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Bom278; (1927)29BOMLR498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first and principal question of the five questions submitted to this Full Bench is : 'Whether a suit brought by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.' It will be noticed that the question has been deliberately confined to enforcing a mortgage by sale. That is the relief asked for in the present suit, and that is the relief ordinarily asked for on the Original Side. Indeed it was even said during the hearing that many Judges in this Court have refused to grant foreclosure at all. And personally I do not remember any case in which I was asked to pass a foreclosure decree, although I must have had hundreds of mortgage suits before me at various times during the last ten years.2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent runs as follows :-And we do further ordain that the, said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-09-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Mad898
Odgers, J.1. The former of these is a petition to raise the order of the learned Acting District Judge of Bellary and the latter to revise the order of the District Munsif of Bellary. They both relate to the same matter and have been argued together.2. The facts are as follows: O. S. No. 199 of 1916 was a suit on a mortgage executed to the respondent by the brother of the petitioners. The respondent obtained a decree. There was a sale in execution of the decree and the decreeholder bought the properties in execution, To this proceeding and suit the petitioners were not parties. They, the brothers of the mortgagor, obstructed the decree-holder when he came to take possession of the property alleged to have been included in the mortgage. On the petition of the mortgagee in E. A. No. 87 of 1918 the petitioners' obstruction was removed on the 4th April 1918 and he was placed in possession of all the lands and a claim order under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil P. C. was made thereon. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-30-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Cal496
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an application was made to Mr. Justice Buckland, purporting to be in the Original Civil v Jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, on behalf of one Girindra Nath Banerjee whom I will call 'the applicant.' The general circumstances giving rise to the application are these. The applicant wa3 arrested on the 25th day of October 1924 at his the then Residence No. 4/3 Malanga Lane in the town of Calcutta. He was kept in custody at the Alipore Central Jail and afterwards at the Midnapore Central Jail. After he had been in custody for some time an order, dated the 19th January 1925, was made under Ordinance No, 1 of 1924 that he should be committed to custody in the Midnapore Jail. On the 12th June 1926 he was served with an order made by the Government of Bengal under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925, by which he wa3 directed to proceed to Midnapore, to report himself to the Superintendent of Police there, to proceed afterwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-31-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Cal768
Page, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 6,492 being part of the, proceeds of the sale of a dwelling house at Bhawalpore in the Punjab. The premises in suit are situate in the Native State of Bhawalpore, and are not within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal.2. The plaintiffs' cause of action is set out in paras. 9-12 of the plaint.Para. 9. - The plaintiffs and the defendant9 as members of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law hid been in joint possession and enjoyment amongst others of the said ancestral house and premises in Bhawalpore, having inherited the same from their common ancestor the said Sundar Shah Rathi as stated above, till the same with all additions and alterations and improvements made thereupon with the advance of time were disposed of about three years ago as stated below.Para. 10. - About three years ago the defendant Chaganlal acting for himself and as the constituted attorney of the other defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-03-1927
Reported in : AIR1928Mad713
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. All these appeals relate to the recovery of allowances payable out of the Kalahasti estate. Appeals Nos. 28, 39 and 387 are from O.S. No. 50 of 1916 and 58, 69 and 70 are from O.S. No. 86 of 1916 and all relate to the allowance payable to one Chennappa, the father of the plaintiff, in O.S. No. 86 of 1916; whereas the remaining appeals, Nos. 280, 288, 352 and 353, relate to an allowance granted to one Lakshmikantamma, widow of the Rajah Venkatappa, by his will in 1894. These latter will be dealt with after considering the first batch of appeals. One Venkatappa, Rajah of Kalahasti, died in 1881 leaving a will whereby he left the estate to his eldest son Muthu Venkaappa and granted allowances to his other sons. In 1890 the second son Timma filed a suit against Rajah Muthu Venkatappa for partition of the estate alleging that it was joint family property and not an impartible estate. This suit was compromised and a decree passed therein on 30th March 1893, whereby it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-04-1927
Reported in : AIR1928All117
Boys, J.1. This is a suit by a zamindar for possession of a plot of land by ejectment of the tenant in possession on the allegation that it had ceased to be a grove, in that on the whole area of 176 acres there were only left two mango trees. Both Courts have found that on the whole area there were only remaining two mangoes, three self-planted babul and some 8 berri (plum) trees, and, holding that the area had lost its character as a grove, have decreed the plaintiff's claim.2. I have been pressed with the decision of two learned Judges of this Court upholding in Letters Patent Appeal a judgment of a single Judge, the case of Mahbub Ali Khan v. Chiddan (1). The judgment, as reported, was difficult to understand and there seemed clearly something wrong. I sent for the original judgment, and all ambiguity vanished when the original judgment showed that there was a clerical error in the report, live lines from the bottom of page 600, where the figures '35 biswas' should be '15 biswas.' A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-15-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Bom643; (1927)29BOMLR1511
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal relates to the amount of duty payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, Article 11 of Schedule I, as amended by Bombay Act III of 1926, which came into force on April 1, 1926. Stated shortly, the Court fee in question may be described as probate duty.2. The point at issue between the parties is whether the amount of the duty ought to be calculated at the rate in force under the law as it stood at the date of the petition for probate, or whether it should be calculated at the higher rate of duty which came into operation before any grant of probate was made.3. The petitioner is the executor of the will of the deceased Shamdas Hiranand who died on December 3, 1923, and he has paid the sum of Rs. 28,439 for duty at or prior to his petition being presented and filed on February 24, 1926. If, however, the amending Act of 1926 applies, then additional duty to the extent of about Rs. 18,861 is payable. A difference having arisen between the Testamentary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-12-1927
Reported in : AIR1929Mad16
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff's sued to redeem a mortgage. It was alleged that the deceased elder brother of the plaintiff usufructually mortgaged the suit land to the defendant for Rs. 50 on 29th July 1903 under Ex. 1. The defendant while admitting the mortgage pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the property by purchase on 29th October 1906, from plaintiffs 2 and 3 and that his possession subsequent to 1906 was as an absolute owner; and though the sale-deed Ex. 2 of 1906 was unregistered, his possession since 1906 was as absolute owner and that he had acquired absolute title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The plaintiff's impugned Ex. 2 as a forged document, and the. District Munsif found that Ex. 2 was not genuine and accordingly decreed redemption. On appeal by the defendant the learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that Ex. 2 was genuine, that it was executed by plaintiff 2 and attested by plaintiff 3. Holding that Ex. 2 wa...
Tag this Judgment!