Chennai Court January 1921 Judgments
Muthu Gowndan Vs. Perumal Iyen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ429
John Wallis, C.J.1. The judgments in Nandigam Subbarayudu v. Kannam Saheb (1919) M.W.N. 836. and Sri Cadadhardoss Bavaji v. Suryanurayana Patnaik (1919) 338 M.L.J. 42, (to which I was a party) and in C.R.P. No. 610 of 1917 proceeded upon the view, which I think was not then seriously contested, that the effect of the decisions of the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Pattanna I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 1012 and in Venkata Sastrulu v. Sitaramudu I.L.R. (1919) Mad, 166 was to raise a presumption that a grant to an inamdar was a grant of the proprietary interest in the land including both warams. This view was seriously challenged for the first time in A.S. No. 160 of 1919 and 69 of 1918 before Abdur Rahim and Moore, JJ. who held that the effect of the Privy Council decisions was that in the case of a grant to an inamadar there was no presumption one way or the other as to whether there was a grant of the proprietary interest in the land. This reference raises the question which of these two view...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Goundan Vs. Perumal Iyen and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad145; (1921)ILR44Mad588
John Wallis, C.J.1. The judgments in Nandigam Subbarayulu v. Kannam Saheb (1919) M.W.N., 836 and in Sri Gadadhardoss Bavaji v. Suryanarayana Patnaik : (1920)38MLJ342 (to which I was a party) and in Narasavadhanulu v. Kamakshiah C.R.P. Nos. 610 to 616 of 1917 (unreported), proceeded upon the view which I think was not then seriously contested, that the effect of the decisions of the Privy Council in Suryanarayanna v. Patanna (1918) I.L.R., 41 Mad., 1012 (P.C) and in Venkata Sastrulu v. Seetharamudu (1920) I.L.R., 43 Mad., 166 (P.C.), was to raise a presumption that a grant to an inamdar was a grant of the proprietary interest in the land including both varams. This view was seriously challenged for the first time in Sri Sri Mahant Radhakrishnadoss v. Chitri Podhanum Appeals Nos. 160 of 1919 and 69 of 1918 (unreported), before Abdur Rahim and Moore, JJ., who held that the effect of the Privy Council decisions was that in the case of a grant to an inamdar there was no presumption one way ...
Tag this Judgment!Appia K.R. Rukmani Ammal and Vs. Kuttuvava Narasimma Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad612; (1921)41MLJ54
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Madura who in reversal of the order of the Principal District Munsiff of Madura directed possession of certain properties to the respondents.2. The facts are a little complicated and the material ones have to be stated to understand the questions in dispute. In stating them I shall sometimes identify the parties with their predecessors in title in order to avoid unnecessary and confusing details. The appellants in C.M.S.A. 25 and 26 were the petitioners in the Munsiff's Court. As mortgagee, their vendor (predecessor in title) obtained the first decree for sale of the plaint properties in a suit brought against the mortgagor and against the respondents (2nd mortgagees). Either by carelessness or deliberately in order to obtain a speedy decree for sale, he agreed to a decree for sale subject to the subsequent mortgage right of the respondents. This decree was passed in July 1907.3. The respondents then brou...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. V. Chendrasekara Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad292; (1921)40MLJ344
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal relates only to plaint items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. He brought the suit among other reliefs for a declaration that the attachment and sale of the items of the plaint lands in execution of the money decree against his father, the 4th defendant, are invalid as the lands are unenfranchised inam lands, and as their attachment and sale are therefore prohibited by law. Both the lower courts decided against the plaintiff's contention.2. The only question argued before us is whether unenfranchised inam lands which had been granted, not for the performance of future services either public or private, but as a pure matter of favour for the maintenance of the donee and his heirs are incapable of alienation and whether such aliena tion is prohibited by law or whether such alienation cannot be allowed as being against public policy. InSundaramurthi Mudali v. Vallinayaki Ammal (1863) 1 M.H.C.R. 465, it was held that each holder of a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. Chandrasegara Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad632
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This Second Appeal relates only to plaint items 1, 2 6, 7 and 8. He brought the suit for a declaration, among other reliefs, that the attachment and sale of these items of the plaint lands in execution of the money decree against his father, the fourth defendant, are invalid as the lands are unenfranchised inam lands, and as their attachment and sale are prohibited by law. Both lower Courts decided against the plaintiff's contention.2. The only question argued before us is whether unenfranchised inam lands which had been granted, not for the performance of future services either public or private, but as a pure matter of favour for the maintenance of the donee and his heirs, are incapable of alienation and whether such alienation is prohibited by law or whether such alienation cannot be allowed as being against public policy. In Sundaramurti Mudali v. Vallinayakki Ammal (1868) 1 M.H.C.R., 465, it was held that each holder of a shrotr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuvanapalli Subbayya Vs. Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachendra Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad352; 66Ind.Cas.207; (1922)42MLJ118
1. This suit to recover arrears of Kattubadi of less than Rs. 500 in amount is of a small cause nature and no second appeal lies. See Mullapudi Balakrishnayya v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 329.2. The appellant's vakil asks us to hold that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the Original Side seeing that under Section 33 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887) he is deemed to be a different Court from the same Court exercising small cause jurisdiction, and suggests that we should interfere in revision and send the suit back for retrial on the Small Cause side.3. In this case, unlike the cases dealt with in Kollipara Seethapathy v. Kankipati Suibayya I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 323 and Davalatsingji (Maharanashri v. Khachar Hamir Mon I.L.R. (1909) Bom 171 there was no reversal of the first court's decree in appeal, and therefore no equity arises in the defendant's favour, to have the lower appellate court's decree set aside and get the case retr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›