Chennai Court November 1922 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.
P. Sami Gurukkal Vs. Thirupathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad193; 72Ind.Cas.798
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question argued in this appeal relates to the effect to be given to the decree in Original Suit No. 43 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in so far as the 14th defendant, the appellant before us, is concerned. The plaintiff in the suit claimed under a deed of mortgage dated the 15th November 1907 executed by the first defendant's father, Suryanarayana Pandarathar in his favour in the following circumstances. One Sena Yena Nagappa Chetti obtained a mortgage-decree against the said Suryanarayana in Original Suit No. 54 of 1903 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tanjore. When the decree-holder brought the mortgaged property, the village of Kovilur, to sale, it was arranged that the judgment-debtor should deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 35,000 towards the said decree and he, for the purpose of raising funds, disposed of the kudiwamm right in various plots iv the village and realised a sum of Rs. 20,000 and deposited the same in Court, a...
Pothukuchi Rajagopalan and ors. Vs. Valivety Ramamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.284
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in. this appeal is, whether a decree obtained against the daughter of the last male holder operates as a bar to the present suit filed by the plaintiffs after the death of the surviving daughter, as reversioners to the estate. The following pedigree will elucidate the facts:Dathappa|----------------------------------| |Sambbanna Veukatasubbanna| marriedRajagopalan Puliamma| |Venkayya || || || |---------------- || | |defendant No. 1. defendant No. 2 || |defendant No. 3 ||------------------------------||----------|----------| |Venkatasubbamma Venkatanarasamma| || plaintiff No. 5|----------------|--------------------------| |plaintiff No. 1 Subbayya|------------|-----------------------------------------| | |plaintiff No. 2. plaintiff No. 3. plaintiff No. 4.2. After Venkatasubbanna's death Pullamma was in possession of the property. She died about the year 1866 and there were disputes in regard to the right to the estate of Veukatasubbanna ...
Arunachala thevan Vs. Vellachami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad324; 71Ind.Cas.514; (1923)44MLJ56
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application by the complainant in C.C. No. 422 of 1920 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate of Tirumangalam, to have an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Usilampatti, who heard the appeal against the conviction in that Calendar Case, regarding the disposal of two bulls which formed the subject matter of the complaint, set aside.2. The complainant's case was that the bulls were entrusted to the accused, and that he committed breach of trust in respect of them. The accused was convicted in the first Court, and the bulls were ordered by that Magistrate to be handed over to the complainant under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but apparently forgot to pass any orders regarding the bulls at the time. A month afterwards on a petition filed by one Vellachami Thevan, the person from whom the bulls were seized, he passed an order directing that the two bulls should b...
N. Dwaraka Doss Vs. G. Narasimhalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad364(1); (1923)44MLJ128
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise the judgment of the Second Presidency Magistrate, (George Town) Madras in C.C. No. 3523 of 1922 on his file, in which he convicted the accused of an offence under Section 403, I.P.C. for having criminally misappropriated a buaffalo belonging to the complainant.2. The finding of the Magistrate that the buffalo really belongs to the complainant is not now controverted, and must be accepted as a finding of fact in revision.3. But, as regards the plea of the accused that he acted bona fide in keeping the buffalo, it does not seem to have been properly disposed of by the Magistrate. The Magistrate observes in his judgment as follows: 'The defence Vakil says that he (the accused) honestly believed it (the buffalo) to be his own and that therefore there was no dishonest misappropriation; it may be that, in the first instance, he honestly believed it to be his own and took it home?; but he had no excuse to keep it when prosecution witness I ...
Nagathal and ors. Vs. V. Arumugham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad354(1); (1923)44MLJ362
In S.A. No. 1396 of 19211. In this case the mortgage money was deposited by plaintiff in Court under Section 83, Transfer of Property Act to the credit of the mort-gagee's heirs. Owing to quarrels among the heirs, the amount was not drawn, but the amount was allowed by, plaintiff to remain in deposit Until his suit for redemption was decreed. He had thus done all he could to enable the mortgagee to draw the amount, as the money was not withdrawn by him before the heirs could settle their disputes, as was the case in Thevaraya Reddy v. Venkatachalam Pandithar 31 M.L.J. 548. In this case, therefore interest ceased to fun from the date of the deposit and the Subordinate Judge was right in allowing mesne profits to plaintiff. This being so his order as to costs must also stand.2. Second Appeal No. 1396 of 1921 is dismissed with costs of the plaintiff.3. Second Apeal No. 1397 of 1921 is dismissed for the same reasons but without costs....
Nagathal and ors. Vs. V. Arumugam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.40
1. In this ease the mortgage-money was deposited by plaintiff in Court under Section 83, Transfer of Property Act, to the credit of the mortgage heirs. Owing to quarrels among the heirs, the amount was not drawn, but the amount was allowed by plaintiff to remain in deposit until his suit for redemption was decreed. He had thus done all he could to enable the mortgage to draw the amount, as the money was not withdrawn by him before the heirs could settle their disputes, as was the case in Thevaraya Beddi v. Venhatachalam Pmdither 37 Ind. Cas. 444 : 40 M. 804 : 4 L.W. 433 : 31 M.L.J. 548 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 321 : (1916)20 M.L.T. 403. In this case, therefore, interest ceased to run from the date of the deposit and the Subordinate Judge was right in allowing mesne profits to plaintiff. This being so, his order as to costs must also stand.2. Second Appeal No. 1396 of 1921 is dismissed with costs of the plaintiff.3. Second Appeal No. 1397 of 1921 is dismissed for the same reasons but without c...
Para Dekkan Alias Peria Pachai and anr. Vs. Khan Bahadur T. AmeeruddIn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad306; 72Ind.Cas.131
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of North Arcot who reversed the decision of the Sub-Collector of Tirupattur, Mr. V.P. Row. The suit was by raiyats to compel the mittadar under whom they held the land to grant them patta at a rent of Rs. 12-1-3 per annum. The defendant's claim was that they were only entitled to have the land at a rent of Rs. 25-7-10.2. It appeared on the evidence that, so far as could be traced back, the amount actually paid has always been Rs. 12-1-3 and not Rs. 25-7-10. But it also appeared from certain documents produced that the Rs. 12-1-3 was arrived at by a deduction from the sum of Rs. 25-7-10. The mittadar set up that the reason of this was that the land had originally been held by a karnam or a gomashta, and that in consideration of services rendered in those capacities the full rent of Rs. 25-7-10 had been reduced to Rs. 12-1-3. The mittadar wholly failed to prove any such case. In fact it was established quite...
Kalianasundaram Pillai Vs. Karuppa Muppanar and ors. and Ratnasabapath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad282; 73Ind.Cas.206
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The facts of this case are that one Vaithilingam Pillai made a deed of gift of certain property on the 9th of September 1891, and it has been found as a fact--and that finding is accepted by the appellant-that that deed of gift was handed over to the donee on the day of execution. Next day the donor adopted a son, the present appellant. After the adoption the deed of gift was registered on the 15th of September 1891.2. It is now contended that, as the adoption took place before the registration and on adoption the adoptee, according to Hindu Law, is in the same position as a child born to the adopter, his rights to this property had intervened and the gift is,, therefore, void. Under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (corresponding to Act III of 1877) Section 47, 'a registered document operates from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.' Under Sectio...
Rathnamasari Declared Mad and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ132
1. This is an appeal in a land acquisition case against the decree of the District Court of Salem. Three plots of land, Survey Nos. 29, 34 and 35, suitable for housebuilding, were acquired for the purpose of building a hostel for the Salem College in 1915, the date of the notification being July, 1915. On plots Nos. 34 and 35, there was a bungalow and that was also acquired. The Deputy Collector awarded in the first instance for the three plots of land including the bungalow and the houses standing on them Rs. 12,170-13-8 and 15 per cent, the statutory compensation in addition. The District Judge has increased that award to Rs. 15,620 including the 15 per cent for compensation. The claimants have appealed to this Court and they claim that their properties are worth much more and that they should get Rs. 8,333-5-7 extra, that is, Rs. 23,953-5-7 in all.2. At the opening of the case the learned Advocate for the appellants wanted us to admit in evidence in this Court the Tahsildar's report...
Chintamaneni Venkatappayya Vs. Chintamaneni Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad352; 71Ind.Cas.450
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the petitioner filed a suit (Original Suit No. 852 of 1919) in the District Munsif's Court of Nuzvid, at Bezwada. On 27th November 1919 he applied under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for an order of temporary injunction. On the same day an ad interim injunction was issued and notice to the defendant was also ordered. The defendant appeared on 5th December 1919 and opposed the plaintiff's application. The District Munsif passed an order directing that, if the defendant furnished security or deposited an amount representing the value of the crop, 'the temporary injunction will be dissolved and till then, the temporary injunction shall stand. On 7th December 1919 the defendant furnished security and the temporary injunction was dissolved. As I read the District Munsif's order of 5th December 1919, the District Munsif was of opinion that there were sufficient grounds for the plaintiff's application. On 19th December 1919, i.e., within 12 days after t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »