Chennai Court October 1921 Judgments
Talikonda Lakshminarasimham Vs. Talikonda Venkataratnayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad645; 70Ind.Cas.642
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought for partition of certain lands lying in the village of Narava Rayapurajupeta commonly known as Narava in the District of Vizagapatam. The appeal relates to B Schedule properties which were formerly karnam Service Inam lands enfranchised in 1911. The objection memorandum relates to C and F Schedule properties which are Darmilla Inams and a house.2. The plaintiff is the widow of one Tirupathiraju. The last office-holder Tatikonda Padayya died on 17th March 1902 (as it appears from Exhibit E) and Tirupathiraju was registered as a karnam with; Talikonda Venkata Hanumayya as his deputy. The defendant is the adopted son of the said Venkata Hanumayya who was the eldest son of Lakhshminarsu, the father of Venkata Hanumayya and Paddayya.3. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree; for the plaintiff for partition of the suit-properties on the strength of the title-deed which was issued in the names of the defendant and the plaintiff and also on the strength of an a...
Tag this Judgment!Mummadi Venkatiah Vs. Boganatham Venkata Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad65; (1922)42MLJ51
1. We are unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in this case, The application on 9-10-13, E, P, 1244 of 13 did, no doubt ask for 'order absolute' and we take it that it meant a final decree, But that application was dismissed it may be quite erroneously The petitioner's remedy then was to appeal against that order, See Subbalakshmi Animal v. Ramanujam Chetty I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 52; he did not do so. The order cannot in our opinion be treated as ultra vires as the lower appellate court says however erroneous it might be; nor can we agree that the petition is to be treated as one that can be revived because it was wrongly disposed of, The theory of revival involves an assumption that the petition was not disposed of but was somehow pending, Error of law in the disposal of a petition does not involve such a position, On the above view, the 2nd application for a final decree which is the one before us now is an incompetent application2. There is the further difficulty that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnummalthamasikum Nanthoth Ryru Nambiar Vs. Kappalli Kanara Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ350
1. The terms of the document in this case shown that the transaction is a mortgage; the person setting up that it is irredeemable should therefore prove it. The lower Courts have held on evidence that the defendant who claims the mortgage to be irredeemable has not established his plea.2. In Kundu v. Imbichi I.L.R. 7 Mad. 442 a similar tenure called 'Kaividuka othi' was held to be redeemable; our attention has not been drawn to any authorities or to any statements in books on Malabar Law to show that the tenure in question here 'Neerozhikka Otti Kanom' is irredeemable. We must therefore hold it to be redeemable. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!M.V.K.T.S.R. Seethalakshmi Ammal by Her Authorised Agent T.A. Narayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad594; 70Ind.Cas.636
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. It is not disputed that the Secretary of the Co-operative 'Stores was asked to rent premises for the opening of a branch. The President of the Stores states in his evidence that no directions were given to the Secretary as to the terms on which the premises were to be engaged. Evidently the terms were left to the discretion of the Secretary. The resolution, Exhibit E, authorises the Secretary to arrange for not exceeding Rs. 32 for the establishment expenses, etc., for the branch store in the Mahadanam Street. The premises in question are situate in the Street and it is not disputed that the society occupied the premises and has been paying rent. The Secretary leased the premises for three years and executed a registered rental agreement acting on behalf of the Society. The expenses of Registration are entered in the Society's accounts and the accounts, which included the sum spent on registration, were passed by the Directors at a meeting held on the 17th Febr...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Mahammad HussaIn Saheb Bahadur and anr. Vs. Mahammad Abdul Rahim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.492; (1922)42MLJ272
Spencer, J.1. This suit (O.S. No. 7 of 1917) was brought under Section 14 of Act XX of 1863, Religious Endowments Act, for (1) a declaration that the properties in the schedules to the plaint belonged to the great Musjid at Guntur (2) the removal of the defendants from the trusteeship of the Musjid and for appointing a new trustee in their place and (3) a direction that the defendants should account for the income of the trust property for twelve years and other appropriate reliefs.2. The District Judge found that this mosque was founded by Orders of the Sultan of Hyderabad, that Hajee Abdul Razak and his heirs were appointed Muttawallis or trustees with the duties of Peish Imam and Khateeb attached and that they were to enjoy the lands and do the religious services from generation to generation. He held further that so long as the defendants and their heirs performed the duties of that office, they had a right to enjoy the produce of the lands and need not account for it. He came to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›