Chennai Court March 1920 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.
The Superintending Engineer 2nd Circle Vs. Chitturi Ramakrishnayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.885
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant, who is described in the plaint as a Government Officer, (namely, the Superintending Engineer, 2nd circle, D. P. W., residing at Bezawada) is the appellant before us.2. This suit for injunction (among other reliefs) was brought against him because (according to the plaint) the defendant in his official capacity attempted to remove a dilapidated Ganapathi Image, which had been placed on a site which has been found by the lower Appellate Court to belong to the Government. The image itself also has been found by that Court to belong to the Government. The Court, however, found (see paragraph 13 of its judgment), (1) that some sort of worship was being done to the said idol for a long time, even when the idol lay half buried in the ground, it having been raised up and placed on a platform only in 1915: (2) that to establish a customary right, it was not necessary that there should be enjoyment for over 20 years or the like. The lower Court further said, '...
Kandula Venkiah Alias Padmanabhudu Vs. Donga Pallayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad12; 57Ind.Cas.724
Wallis, C.J.1. This reference raises two questions, (1), whether Exhibit A is an anomalous mortgage within the meaning of Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act and (2), if it if, whether effect is to be given to the stipulation for the execution of a sale deed by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee on default of payment within the stipulated time, although this stipulation amounts to a clog on the statutory right of redemption conferred by Section 60 of the Act. As regards the first question, there are four classes of mortgages defined in Section 58:--(1) simple mortgages, (2) mortgage by conditionals sale, (3) usufructuary mortgage and (4) English mortgage. Section 98 also recognizes two further clases of mortgages, viz., a combination of (1) and (3), a simple mortgage and a usufructuary mortgage, or a combination of (2) and (3), a mortgage by conditional sale and a usufructuary mortgage ; and it is only to mortgages which do not come within any of these six classes that the...
Mathosri Rama Boi Ammani and anr. Vs. V. Ry. Sivaji Rajah Sahib and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.265
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the right of inheritance with respect to certain properties which were the stridhanam properties of Umamba Boi Saheba, a lady who must be taken to have been married in the approved form to Sivaji Maharaja of Tanjore. On her death the properties were inherited by her surviving co-widow, Jeejamba Boi Saheba. The appellants, on the death of Jeejamba Boi Saheba, claim to be entitled to this property by virtue of their relationship as sister and sister's son of Umamba Boi Saheba. The learned Subordinate Judge has found on the basis of the law laid down in the Mayukha that Jeejamba Boi Saheba formed a fresh stock of descent and therefore, the appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) had no case. The family of the Maharajah of Tanjore migrated from Poona and the Subordinate Judge has found that they are governed by Maharastra Law. But it is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to consider that question inasmuch as it is conceded that Maharajah Siva...
Chinnammall Vs. P. Ratnasabapathy Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.241
1. This is an appeal from the judgment or the learned City Civil Judge, in a suit brought by the trustees of Sri Kashaleeswarer Temple to recover from the defendant a small plot which is situated in George Town close to the temple itself. The defence is that the plot is held on a permanent tenancy at a monthly rental of twelve annas. The law is perfectly clear that the presumption is against the existence of a permanent tenancy, and that it is upon those who allege it to prove it. The learned City Civil Judge has found that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to discharge that burden. The evidence simply comes to this, that, for the last 32 years, the land has been let at this rate and that the superstructure on the land was purchased by the defendant in 1895 and has been subsequently mortgaged by her.2. It is easy to lay down what the presumptions are, but it is often difficult to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption against a permanent tenancy or...
V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Venkatachallam Chetty and anr. Vs. V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ269
1. The plaintiffs and defendants are Nattu-kottai Chetties carrying on business in Akyab. They had a separate money lending business of their own. It appears that they entered into a partnership with respect to a business in paddy as Commission agents. They used to buy paddy for customers on commission and send it to 'their customers in India. The business however, was conducted by the plaintiffs and defendants separately with their own customers and independently of each other. It was carried on in the separate names of the plaintiffs and the defendants and so far as we can gather they were to conduct the business entirely in their own way; but whatever was the profit or loss in the business as conducted by either party, that was to be shared by the other party equally. There was at first a suit for dissolution of this partnership but it was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs for contribution with respect to certain sums paid by the...
V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Venkatachellam Chetty and anr. Vs. V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.501
1. The plaintiffs and defendants are Nattukottai Chetties carrying on business in Akyab, They had a separate money-lending business of their own. It appears that they entered into a partnership with respect to a business in paddy as commission agents. They used to buy paddy for customers on commission and send it to their customers in India. The business, however, was conducted by the plaintiffs and defendants separately with their own customers and independently of each other, it was carried on in the separate names of the plaintiffs and the defendants and, so far as we can gather, they were to conduct the business entirely in their own way, but whatever was the profit or loss in the business as conducted by either party, that was to be shared by the other party equally. There was, at first, a suit for dissolution of this partnership but it was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs for contribution, with respect to certain sums paid by...
Nachiyappan Alias Kirukan and ors. Vs. Alagappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad107; 62Ind.Cas.87
Spencer, J.1. These suits were brought in ejectment and arose out of a boundary dispute between the Mahajanams of Sarvamanyam village of Kalanivasal and the ryiats of Sekkalakottai, a village in the Zemindari estate of Sivaganga. The plaintiff is the holder of a permanent cowle (Exhibit D), from the lessees of Sivaganga estate, over 150 kurukkams of land in this village. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are lessees of the Sivaganga estate under a lease from a former Zemindar which has now expired. They granted the plaintiff's cowle but have now no interest in these proceedings. Defendants Nob. 6 to 9 in the main appeal (Second Appeal No. 1759 of 1916) own the Dharmasanam village of Kalanivasal, by virtue of a copperplate grant of the year 1710 from the eighth Rajah of Ramnad. The defendants other than the fourth defendant are the eighth Karai Vallambaras of Kottaiyur who claim a title by a conveyance of 1883 from certain temple trustees, who themselves derived their title by transfer from th...
Palayakayal Swami Sangumugeswarar, Through Its Trustee Pillaimuthu Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.183
1. The main question for decision in all these second appeals is, whether the plaintiff, who claims to be the trustee of the temple, has been validly appointed. The history of the negotiations that preceded the transfer of management by the Government to the Siva Temple Committee of the Tinnevelly District is this, There were no regular trustees for the temple previously and, ex conceisio, the temple was not managed by the Board of Revenue order Regulation VII of 1817. Apparently, the temple would not come under Section 3 of Act XX of 1863. The archal as of the temple were doing the duties of the dharma kartas, as is the case even to day in many temples. That they grossly neglected the affairs of the temple, end allowed others to trespass on the property are clear. Government, in the year 1910, resolved to put an end to this state of affairs and resumed the lands from the archakas, Exhibit BB. In respect of the ryoti lands, they converted them into ryotwari holdings and resolved to giv...
Arunachellam Chetty Vs. Somasundaram Chetty, by His Agent, K.V. Laksha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.86
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Petitioner and the counter-petitioner had decrees against a common-judgment debtor. Permission was granted by the Court to the counter petitioner to bid at the auction and to set off his claim under the decree against the purchase-money. In pursuance of the permission, counter petitioner purchased, on 28th August 1918, one item of the judgment-debtor's property. On the same date another property was sold to a stranger and he deposited the money on 10th September 1918. Apparently, the counter petitioner did not deposit the money. Petitioner applied for rateable distribution on 29th August 1918. The lower Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to rateable distribution in respect of the purchase money payable by the counter-petitioner. I think he is wrong. Under Order XXI, Rule 72 permission to bid and to set off are made subject to the rights of decree-holders under Section 73. There is nothing before me to show that the permission in the present case wa...
Angamuthu and ors. Vs. Ramalinga Pillai Alias Rajamani Pillai, Minor b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.766; (1920)39MLJ685
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 5, 6 and 2 are the appellants. The plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 were minors when this suit was brought. The plaintiff's adoptive father Srinivasa Pillai and the father of the defendants 5 and 6 Annamalai Pillai were co-trustees of the plaint choultry charity. The trusteeship seems to have been hereditary. As regards this custom of hereditary trusteeship I quoted in Subramania Aiyar v. Lakshmana Goundan (1919) 27 M.L.T. 11 a learned writer who recently said ' the error of decadent India has been to lay too much stress on the Law of Heredity in connection with national organization, to assert loudly with false claims of degenerate pseudo-religion and pseudo-science that that law is the sole arbiter of pseudo-physical type, and to forget, to ignore and refuse recognition now altogether in theory to the equally important and equally operative law of the effects of Individual Tapas.' Further on I remarked in that case ' the fondness for introducing th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »