Chennai Court January 1924 Judgments
Mantripragada Gourikantam and ors. Vs. Mantripragada Ramamurthy and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ482
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff, the seventh defendant and another were the sons of one Bayyapuraju. The plaint property was a mirasi karnam inam enfranchised in the names of the seventh defendant, the plaintiff and Suryanarayana, who were the three sons of Bayyapuraju, and the first defendant, who is the brother of Bayyapuraju. Suryanarayana died long ago. The plaintiff sued for one half share in the property on the footing that first defendant had no right in it. The first defendant relied on a family arrangement in 1905 in which the plaintiff and the. seventh defendant gave up their third shares to the first defendant. The District Munsif upheld that arrangement and dismissed the suit on the ground that the first defendant had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years since 1905. In the lower appellate Court it was argued that, as the enfranchisement of the inam was in 1911, the property was until then the absolute property of Government, that the first defendant, if he was from...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami thevan and ors. Vs. Alaga Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad143; 79Ind.Cas.881
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of a manikat from purakkudi tenants after removing the superstructure thereon, the allegation being that the first defendant's father, and the other defendants were let into the land on condition of doing service in accordance with the Tanjore custom of purakkudi service; that, when the plaintiff called on the defendants in 1913 to quit the land because they refused to do service, the defendants pleaded title from Government to whom they had executed a muchilika in respect of the suit site.2. The first Court held that, since the cessation of service was long prior to twelve years, before the plaintiff's suit, the plaintiff's title to the suit site had become extinguished by force of Section 28 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Court held that it was not open to the defendants to plead justertii in Government until they had determined the existing tenancy by surrendering possession or otherwise and that, therefore, t...
Tag this Judgment!Setu Iyer Vs. Sundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad175
1. In this case a vacancy occurred in the trusteeship of the Perur temple on the 29th of August, 1921 and a petition was filed on the 7th of April 1922, alleging that the Devastanam Committee had not filled up the vacancy in accordance with the schema framed for the temple and asking the Court to fill up that vacancy.2. There are two questions that arise here; firstly, was the vacancy filled up by the Devastanam Committee and secondly, is the order of the Court calling for nominations to the vacancy a legal order in view of the allegation that the notice sent to the Committee under Clause 4(b) of the scheme was not proper?3. On the first question we have the various resolutions of the Committee. On the 19th of September, 1921 the Committee were of opinion that one Subbaraya Goundan should be appointed trustee and it was resolved that he be requested to report his willingness to the Committee. Subbaraya Goundan replied to that resolution on the 4th of October, 1921 stating:I learn that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayandi Servai Vs. Santhanam Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad303
1. In this appeal, we are concerned only with plaint items 3 and 4, which consist of nattamai service lands enfranchised in 1906, in the name of the third defendant. The lower Appellate Court, acting in accordance with rulings, which at the time of its decision were held to embody the law governing the case, has decided that the title to these properties vested not in the third defendant alone, but in the joint family of which at the time of enfranchisement he was a member. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in Musti Venkata Jagannadha v. Musti Veerabhadrayya A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 96 it must now be held that these lands were after enfranchisement the separate property of the third defendant It would seem to follow from this that the present suit should be dismissed, as regards these lands. But Mr, Ananthe-krishna Ayyar, who represents the plaintiffs before us, has raised another point. He contends that, although the lands must be treated as the separate property of the 3rd defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Mautripragada Gowrikantam and ors. Vs. Mantipragada Ramamurthy and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.557
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff, the seventh defendant and another were the sons of one Bogyapparaju. The plaint property was a Mirasi Karnam inam enfranchised in the names of the seventh defendant, the plaintiff and Suryanarayana, who were the three sons of Bogyapparaju, and the first defendant who is the brother of Bogyapparaju, Suryanarayana died long ago. The plaintiff sued for one half share in the property on the footing that the 1st defendant had no right in it. The first defendant relied on a family arrangement in 1905 in which the plaintiff and the seventh defendant gave up their third shares to the first defendant. The District Munsif upheld that arrangement and dismissed the suit on the ground that the first defendant had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years since 1905. In the lower Appellate Court it was argued that, as the enfranchisement of the inam was in 1911, the property was until then the absolute property of Government, that the first defendant, if he was f...
Tag this Judgment!Gourikantam and ors. Vs. Ramamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad783
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff, the seventh defendant and another were the sons of one Bayyapuraju. The plaint property was a mirasi karnam inam enfranchised in the names of seventh defendant, the plaintiff and Suryanarayana, who were the three sons of Bayyapuraju, and the first defendant, who is the brother of Bayyapuraju. Suryanarayana died long ago. The plaintiff sued for one half share in the property on the footing that first defendant had no right in it. The first defendant relied on a family arrangement in 1905 in which the plaintiff and the seventh defendant gave up their third share to the first defendant. The District Munsif upheld that arrangement and dismissed the suit on the ground that the first defendant had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years since 1905. In the lower appellate Court it was argued that, as the enfranchisement of the (sic) was in 1911, the property was until then the absolute property of Government, that the first defendant, if he was from 1905...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Kuduva and ors. Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Hamza Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad776; 84Ind.Cas.625
Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The principal question for decision in this second appeal is whether the sale-deed dated 18th April 1916, Ex. B, executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in favour of the 8th defendant worked a forfeiture of the one-third share of the properties held by these defendants and others upon a mulgeni lease of 1864, Ex. A. Ex. B purports to be an outright sale, the vendors declaring 'We have given up all our rights and interest in the said property and placed the property which is in our possession in your possession now.' There is also a clause of divestment: 'Neither we nor our representatives have any right, interest, or power, or claim, etc., in the said property.' Under Ex. A the lessee undertook that he would not alienate the said land in any way and there was a covenant: 'In default I shall be liable to surrender the said land to you immediately.2. The District Munsif and the District Judge held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the property on the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramani Alias Venkatramani and ors. Vs. M. Narayanaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ192
Odgers, J.1. In this case the suit was on a usufructuary mortgage-bond executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant being the father of defendants 2, 3 and 4. The last two are the appellants before us. The 3rd and 4th defendants, who are undivided members of a joint Hindu family which owns apparently large properties, have brought the suit to set aside the suit mortgage alleging inter alia that the document was only intended to operate if, on taking the accounts between the defendants and the plaintiff, any amount was found due from the latter to the former. The matter before us arises directly out of the petition for the appointment of a receiver in the Mayavaram Sub-Court in which the suit had been instituted. The suit was numbered 98 of 1912. Argument was heard, on the 19th September, 1923, the petition was adjourned for orders to the 21st September. For various reasons, the order was not pronounced till the 2nd October, 1923, when the plaintiff was app...
Tag this Judgment!Sengoda Goundan Vs. Minor Muthu Goundan by Next Friend Komaravela Goun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ404
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This suit is for partition and the question argued before us relates to the plaintiff's claim to succeed to the share of his deceased minor brother by right of survivorship. There was a previous suit by the plaintiff and his brother, both being minors represented by a next friend, for partition, which ended in a compromise decree Ex. A, dated 24th November 1915. It has been argued before us that, when two persons ask for a partition, it should be implied that they intend to get divided from each other as well as from the joint family to which they belong. Nothing can be gathered from the fact that in the former suit the two minor plaintiffs combined to ask for a partition as to their intention to become divided inter se. The right to obtain a partition, though personal, happened to be common to both the plaintiffs, and common questions of law and fact arose out of their suing. The mere fact that there was one trial and one decree in the former...
Tag this Judgment!Sendattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar Avergal Vs. Veerappa Naidu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ450
Phillips, J.1. All these petitions relate to suits filed by tenants against the landlord for commutation of grain rents into money rents. The Deputy Collector allowed this commutation and fixed the rate at which it was to be made. The landlord appealed to the District Judge on the ground that the rate fixed was too low and he calculated the value of the relief sought at the difference between the amount fixed by the Deputy Collector and the amount which he alleged to be correct and paid ad valorem fees on the amount. The District Judge has held that this is not correct but that a fee of Rs. 10 should be paid on each appeal under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, Clause 17 (6) holding that it is a suit where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. Now the petitioner applies to have the order of the District Judge set aside.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Government Pleader th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »