Chennai Court December 1923 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.
Karakkattidathil Ryrappan Nambiyar Vs. Kalliayatt Thazhathveetil Chath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.343; (1924)46MLJ377
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry returning the plaint filed in his Court in O.S. No. 44 of 1920 for presentation to the proper Court. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was designedly over-valued in order to bring it within his jurisdiction and that, if properly valued, it fell within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was liable to pay Achu palisha, only at the rate of 150 seers of paddy per annum in respect of the plaint-mentioned 5 1/2 hills, and that he was not liable to pay 359 3/8 seers of paddy which the defendant was claiming. What the origin of this liability to pay Achu palisha is not stated but the liability itself is admitted. It would seem from the plaint that the total 509 3/8 seers of paddy is charged upon 16 hills of which the plaintiff has become the owner of 5 1/2 hills, the defendant apparently being now the owner of some of the other hills. The defe...
A. Chelmayya Vs. A. Lakshmi Devamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad171
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the Subordinate-Judge of Kistna. The objection taken before us to it is that the order of remand was incompetent and that it should be set aside. What happened was the Munsiff tried the whole of the suit recording evidence on all the issues framed in the case. There were altogether eleven issues, ten issues orginally framed and one additional issue. He gave findings on all the issues except the eleventh issue, namely, the additional issue. But in doing so he gave reasons and discussed the evidence only as regards issues 2,4 and 10 but as regards issues 5 to 9 he merely recorded:I find the issues for the plaintiff.2. He has not given any reasons for thee conclusion that he came to in favour of the plaintiffs on those issues. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge treated the case as if it had been disposed of on a preliminary point, set aside the decree of the lower Court and all the findings which it had come to and remanded the case for fre...
Aduri Chelmayya Minor Represented by Next Friend Chellamma Vs. Aduri L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.857
1. This is an appeal against a order of remand by the Subordinate Judge of Kistna. The objection taken before us to it is that the order of remand was incompetent and that it should be set aside. What happened was: the Munsif tried the whole of the suit recording evidence oil all the issues framed in the case. There were altogether eleven issues, ten issues originally framed and one additional issue. He gave findings on all the issues except the eleventh issue, namely, the additional issue. But in doing so he gave reasons and discussed the evidence only as regards issues 2, 4 and 10 but as regards issues 5 to 9 he merely recorded,I find the issues for the plaintiff.2. He has not given any reasons for the conclusion that he came to in favour of the plaintiffs on those issues. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge treated the case as if it had been disposed of on a preliminary point, set aside the decree of the lower Court and all the findings which it had come to and remanded the case for fr...
Kauna Panikkar and ors. Vs. Nanchan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.564
1. It has been held in Ghandu v. Kambi9 M. 208 : 3 Ind. Dec. 542, Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Doe. 19, and followed in Ghappan v. Paru 15 Ind. Cas. 587 : 87 M. 420 : 13 M.L.T. 118, that the-members of a tarwad need no sue to set aside an alienation by the Karnavan but can sue to recover possession on the strength of title. In the latter case, one ground for the decision was that the alienation though not binding on the tarwad might be binding on the Karnavan. In this view Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act would not be applicable to the present-case, but it is argued that, inasmuch as the Rarnavan purported to execute the document not only as Karnavathi, but also as guardian of the minor plaintiffs, consequently the members are parties to the document, and as such are bound to set it aside before recovering the property. But can it be said that minors are parties in that sense? It has been held in the case of Hindu Mitakshara families that sons when minors are represente...
K. Rayrappan Kutti Nambiar Vs. Kalliayt Thazhathveetil Chathathut Kutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad621
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellieherry returning the plaint filed in his Court in O.S. No. 44 of 1920 for presentation to the proper Court. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was designedly over-valued in order to bring it within his jurisdiction and that, if properly valued, it fell within the jurisdiction of District Munsif. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was liable to pay Achu palisha, only at the rate of 150 seers of paddy per annum in respect of the plaint-mentioned 5 1/2 hills, and that he was not liable to pay 3595 seers of paddy which the defendant was claiming, What the origin of this liability to pay Achu palisha is not stated but; the liability itself is admitted. It would seem from the plaint that the total 50911 seers of paddy is charged upon 18 hills of which the plaintiff has become the owner of 5 1/2 hills, the defendant apparently being now the owner of some of the other bills. The defendant's ...
Nataraja Pillai Vs. Rengasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad657; (1924)46MLJ274
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore wherein he revoked the sanction to prosecute the respondents granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The application is under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The old section allowed application to be made by a private party. This has now been abolished by the amended section and no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, etc., or of the Court when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that Court. Mr. A. V. Visvanatha Sastriar, who appears for the respondents, takes more than one preliminary objection. We have only heard him so far on one, and that is the question whether sanction proceedings can now be entertained under the Crim...
immudipattam Janakirama Kumara Kondama Subramania Nachimuthu Bommayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ374
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the question arises in the execution of the Decree in O.S. No. 714 of 1911 on the file of the principal District Munsif of Dindigul. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the then Zemindar of Ayakudi for a certain sum of money. That Zemindar died in 1917 and this is an application made by the plaintiff for attachment of certain sums of money payable to the present Zamindar under a lease which was granted by the previous Zamindar who was the judgment debtor, but for a period subsequent to the death of that Zamindar. The decree is sought to be executed against the present Zamindar as the legal representative of the late Zamindar against the assets in his hands. The present Zamindar objected to the attachment and contended that this money could not be treated as assets in his hands as it was his own money and further more that the matter could not be gone into in execution. The Munsif gave effect to the plea that the matter could not be gone into in execution...
immudipattam Janakirama Kumara Kondama Subramania Narhimuthu Bommayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.165
1. In this case the question arises in the execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 714 of 1911 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Dindigul. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the then zemindar of Ayakudi for a certain sum of moneys That zemindar died in 1917 and this is an application made by the plaintiff for attachment of certain sums of money payable to the present zemindar under a lease which was granted by the previous zemindar who was the judgment-debtor, but for a period subsequent to the death of that zemindar. The decree is sought to be executed against the present zemindar as the legal representative of the late zemindar against the assets in his hands. The present zemindar objected to the attachment and contended that this money could not be treated as assets in his hands as it was his own money and further more that the matter could not begone into in execution. The Munsif gave effect to the plea that the matter could not be gone into in execution and...
Nallamuthu Padayachi Vs. Srinivasa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.965
Krishnan, J.1. In this case both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, holding that the defendant's pleas that he had a permanent right of occupancy in the suit lands and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit were both barred on the ground of res judicata. The question argued before me is as regards the plea of res judicata. The way in which that plea of res judicata is raised is this: The plaintiff in this suit, who was the lessee under the Receiver of the Tanjore Palace Estate, brought O.S. No. 580 of 1911 on the file of the same District Munsif's Court, to eject the first defendant and the first defendant therein had raised the same pleas. Those pleas were overruled and a decree was given for ejectment. The plaintiff's lease, which he then sued on, was for a period which expired six years after that suit was filed. The plaintiff had again given a sub-lease for the remaining period of three years of his lease to the first defendant. But ...
Nallumuthu Padayachi Vs. Srinivasa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad576
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, holding that the defendant's pleas that he had a permanent right of occupancy in the suit lands and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit were both barred on the ground of res judicata. The question argued before me is as regards the plea of res judicata. The way in which that plea of res judicata, is raised is this: The plaintiff in this suit, who was the lessee under the Receiver of the Tanjore Palace estate, brought O.S. No. 580 of 1911 on the file of the same District Munsif's Court, to eject the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant therein had raised the same pleas. Those pleas were overruled and a decree was given for ejectment. The plaintiff's lease, which he then sued on, was for a period which expired six years after that suit was filed. The plaintiff had again given a sub-lease for the remaining period of three years of his lease to the 1st defendant. But the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »