Chennai Court November 1919 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Venkatasami Naidu Vs. Gurusami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)43MLJ441
1. Both parties in the case attached the property of same person before judgment in their respective suits against him, and both obtained decrees for money, one in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanjore and the other of Valangiman. Both parties applied in the Court of the District Munsif of Valangiman for execution of their respective decrees, but the first application of the respondent was dismissed. The appellant's application resulted in a Court sale in which he purchased the attached property.2. The respondent has now again applied for a sale of the same property in execution of his decree, and the appellant has applied in those proceedings for an order that the the application may be dismissed on the ground that the has become the owner of the property.3. It is well established that an attachment confers no interest in the property which is in custodia legis and the effect of attachment is to render any private alienation void as against all claims enforceable under the attac...
Mardala Samigadu and ors. Vs. Paida Sreenivasalu Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.708
1. These are suits by tenants against the landlord to settle the terras of a pattah and also in case the Court should come to the conclusion that the rent payable is, in kind, to settle, under Section 40 of the Estates Land Act, the commutation rate in money. In the first instance the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the rent is payable in kind and not in money. He further held that out of 20 tooms the landlord's share was 9 1/2 tooms. He also held, as regards the complaint of the tenants that the irrigation sources were not in good order, that they were in a fairly good condition and that water was being supplied through outs or vagus made in the bund. Upon that conclusion he proceeded to determine the commutation rate under Section 40 of the Estates Land Act. He fixed the yield at 12 puttiet of grain for the whole village, and fixed the value of each putti at Rs. 50 for purpose of commutation and directed that in respect of each of the holdings this amount be apportioned....
Sree Raja Malraju Lakshmi Venkayamma Rao Bahadur Vs. Kuntamukkala Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.629
1. The first question in this appeal is whether the defendants were ryots in possession of the suit land, which must be taken to be ryoti land, on the 1st July 1908 when the Madras Estates Land Act came into force, so that they acquired occupancy rights therein by virtue of Section 6. They had held as ryots, that is to say, persons holding for the purpose of agriculture ryoti land in an estate on the condition of paying to the landholder the rent which is legally due [Section 3(15)] under a Muchilika, Exhibit C, which bound them to vacate on the 1st June 1908, and it is contended for the appellant that they had ceased to be ryots on 1st July 1908 when the Act came into force. Evidence was given that the estate was watched during that period by plaintiff's witnesses Nos. 9 and 11 who were servants of the late Zemindar, and it was argued that this showed a resumption of possession on behalf of the estate. The Subordinate Judge, in our opinion, has rightly disbelieved this evidence. At th...
Venkatasawmy Naidu Vs. Gurusawmi Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.616
1. Both parties in this case attached the property of the same person before judgment in their respective suits against him and both obtained decrees for money, one in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanjore and the other in that of Valangiman. Both parties applied in the Court of the District Munsif of Valangiman for execution of their respective decrees, but the first application of the respondent was dismissed. The appellant's application resulted in a Court sale in which he purchased the attached property.2. The respondent has now again applied for a sale of the same property in execution of his decree and the appellant has applied in those proceedings for an order that the application may be dismissed on the ground that he has become the owner of the property.3. It is well established that an attachment confers no interest in the property, which is in custodia legis, and the effect of attachment is to render any private alienation void as against all claims enforceable under t...
Vaithinatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. S. Tyagaraja Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ20
1. This appeal arises in a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with reference to a choultry and the properties alleged to be endowed for the use of that choultry. The two plaintiffs are relations of the founder and the two defendants allege to be the lawfully appointed trustees under the will of one Suriyanarayjna Aiyar who according to the plaintiffs was the last surviving trustee of this charity. Suriya-Narayana Aiyar was one of five brothers, the sons of one Kalyanarama Iyer. The other four brothers were Sivasubra-maniya Aiyar, Venkataranga Aiyar, Swaminatha Aiyar and Sivarama Aiyar. Kaliyanarama Aiyar had also several daughters one of them being the mother of Thiyagaraja Aiyar, the 1st plaintiff. 2nd plaintiff is the son of the adopted son of another daughter of Kaliyanarama Aiyar. One daughter of Kaliyanarama Aiyar named Subbuthayi Animal is still alive all the sons and the other daughters having died previous to the institution of the suit. The first question ...
Sreemantha Raja Yarlagada Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.552; (1920)39MLJ277
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I agree in the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother in his judgment which I had the advantage of reading but as the appeal raises a question of some importance relating to the interpretation of the Madras Estates Land Act I shall briefly give my reasons.2. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us sued to eject the defendant from nine kattis or 153 acres of cultivated land claiming them as his privafe or home-farm land and also from 65 kattis of waste land in the village of Mejuri in the Zemin-dari of Chellapalli otherwise called Devaralakota. The appeal relates to the land of the former description with respect tp which the suit was dismissed and the memorandum of objections, filed by the defendants is against the decree in favour of the appellant with respect to the waste land. I shall first deal with the appeal in which the only question raised is whether the 9 kattis of cultivated land in suit are the home-farm land of the Zemindar. If the finding of the...
Vankamamidi Balakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Vankamamidi Venkata Triambakam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ86
1. This is a suit for partition. The 1st Plaintiff is the father and the 2nd Plaintiff is his natural born son. The 1st defendant is his adopted son and the 2nd defendant is the son of that adopted son. The question for consideration is what is the share to which the 1st defendant, the adopted son is entiled when a suit is brought for partition and the father is party to that suit. A question was raised, which is referred to in the written statement that, as before the birth of a second son there was an award of arbitrators settling the disputes between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant, a decree should be passed in pursuance of that award. The first issue related to that contention. The facts relating to that issue are these. The adoption of the 1st defendant was made in 1887 when the 1st plaintiff's first wife was alive. She died in 1888. First plaintiff contemplated marrying a second wife. Thereupon the natural father of the 1st defendant raised disputes, and asked that before...
Venkamamidi Balakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Venkamamidi Venkata Triambakam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.371
1. This is a suit for partition. The 1st plaintiff is the father and the 2nd plaintiff is his natural born son. The 1st defendant is his adopted son and the 2nd defendant is the son of the adopted son. The question for consideration is, what is the share to which the 1st defendant, the adopted son, is entitled when a suit is brought for partition and the father is a party to that suit. A question was raised which is referred to in the written statement that, as before the birth of a second son, there was an award of arbitrators settling the disputes between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant, a decree should be passed in pursuance of that award. The first issue related to that contention. The facts relating to that issue are these. The adoption of the 1st defendant was made in 1887 when the 1st plaintiff's first wife was alive.' She died in 1888. First plaintiff contemplated marrying a second wife. Thereupon the natural father of the 1st defendant raised disputes and asked that be...
K.C. Srimanavedan Raja Vs. Parapravan Moidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ73
ORDER1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tellicherry under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The rival Jenmies were disputing the right to possession in respect of a tract of forest land 30 square miles in extent. In February 1919, the Inspector of Police reported to the Magistrate that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace in respect of the possession of this property. Thereupon he initiated proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile a suit was instituted in the Munsif's Court in respect of the very same property. An injunction was issued by the District Munsif. In consequence of the issue of this injunction the Magistrate stayed his hands for some time. Subsequently this injunction was dissolved by the District Judge in August 1919. The Magistrate revived the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. We are told that there was a fresh report from the Police Inspector informing the M...
K.C. Sreemanavedava Raju Vs. Parapravan Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.254
1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tellicherry under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, Two rival Jenmis were disputing the right to possession in respect of a tract of forest land, 30 square miles in extent, In February 1919 the Inspector of Police reported to the Magistrate that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace in respect of the possession of this property. Thereupon he initiated proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile a suit was instituted in the District Munsif's Court in respect of the very same property. An injunction was issued by the District Munsif. In consequence of the issue of this injunction, the Magistrate stayed his hands for some time. Subsequently this injunction was dissolved by the District Judge in August 1919. The Magistrate revived the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. We are told that there was a fresh report from the Police Inspector informing t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »