Chennai Court October 1924 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.
Maya Krishna Kone Vs. Kulasekhara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad465; (1925)48MLJ116
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this case was duly nominated for election to a Union Board according to the rules relating thereto. The President of the Taluq Board rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he was a person disqualified to be nominated under the provisions of Section 55 of the Local Boards Act, Act XIV of 1920. Under Clause 4 of that section, no officer or servant holding office under the Act or an honorary Magistrate for the local area over which the Local Board concerned has jurisdiction is competent to be appointed as a member of such Local Board. The ground on which the President of the Taluq Board held the petitioner disqualified was that the petitioner was a member of the Panchayat of the village which exercised criminal jurisdiction within the same jurisdiction and that as for the services rendered by the petitioner as a member of the Panchayat in the administration of criminal justice he was not paid, he was an honorary Magistrate w...
Mallipeddi Lakshmamma Vs. Mallipeddi Venkatasubbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad795; 87Ind.Cas.210; (1925)48MLJ266
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance and for arrears. The plaintiff is the appellant before me in Second Appeal. In the plaint she claimed at the rate of Rs. 15 a month and arrears for six years. Her husband died 26 years before suit. The defendants pleaded that there was an arrangement by which her claim for maintenance was satisfied and also contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask for arrears. This arrangement was supposed to be 12 years before suit. Both the Lower Courts found against the arrangement pleaded by the defendants. The District Munsif ought to have framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of past maintenance and how much, if any. It is true that if the defendants want to plead that the plaintiff is disentitled to recover any arrears of maintenance they must plead and prove the circumstances amounting to an abandonment. Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayadu v. Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Naya...
Avugaddi Jogamma and ors. Vs. Lalam Pothanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad763; (1925)48MLJ287
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of certain lands from the possession of the defendant. The 1st defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. She gave her daughter in marriage to him. The plaintiff's daughter was married to the 3rd defendant, a son of the 1st defendant. The parties are thus very near relations. The immediate occasion for the suit was the death of the plaintiff's daughter that is the 3rd defendant's wife. The plaintiff lost his mother when he was just an infant. The 1st defendant who was his senior in age by over 20 years came over to her father's house and began to look after and bring up her brother, the plaintiff. Shortly after, the plaintiff lost his father; and throughout the 1st defendant brought him up, and it would seem that he was practically regarded as her child. After the plaintiff grew up, he became the Village Munsif and was unable to manage his own lands. The sons of the 1st defendant cultivated the plaintiff's lands and generally ha...
(Divi) Dwarkacharyulu Vs. Kothapalli Srikrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1152
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In this petition, I am asked to revise an order passed by the District Court of Kistna setting aside the election of the petitioner as President of a Union Board.2. The two grounds on which the learned District Judge set aside the election are (1) that the members of the Union Board had not taken their oaths of allegiance before the alleged election was held; (2) that the meeting at which the election of the President took place was a meeting not held on the day and at the time fixed by the President of the Taluk Board, as required by Sub-clause (3) of Rule 15 of the Transitory Provisions contained in Schedule X of the Local Boards Act, but on the subsequent date to which the meeting originally called was adjourned by the President of the meeting because there was no quorum present on the first occasion. I think the decision of the learned District Judge on both these points was correct.3. As regards the first contention, the Act required that the oath should b...
Divi Dwarkacharyulu Vs. Kothapalli Srikrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.825
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. In this petition, I am asked to revise an order passed by the District Court of Kistna setting aside the election of the petitioner as President of a Union Board.2. The two grounds on which the learned District Judge set aside the election are (1) that the members of the Union Board had not taken their oaths of allegiance before the alleged election was held and (2) that the meeting at which the election of the President took place was a meeting not held on the day and at the time fixed' by the President of the Taluk Board as required by Sub-clause (3) of Rule 15 of the Transitory Provisions contained in Schedule X of the Local Boards Act, but on subsequent date to which the meeting originally called was adjourned by the President of the meeting because there was no quorum present on the first occasion. I think the decision of the learned District Judge on both these points was correct.3. As regards the first contention, the Act required that the oath should be ...
Avugaddi Jogamma and ors. Vs. Lalian Pothanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.903
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff sties for the recovery of certain lands from the possession of the defendants. The 1st defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. She gave her-daughter in marriage to him. The plaintiffs' daughter was married to the 3rd defendant, a son of the 1st defendant. The parties are thus very near relations. The immediate occasion for the suit was the death of the plaintiff's daughter, that is the 3rd defendant's wife. The plaintiff lost his mother when he was just an infant. The 1st defendant who was his senior in age by over 20 years came over to her father's house and began to look after and bring up her brother, the plaintiff. Shortly after, the plaintiff lost his father; and throughout the 1st defendant brought him up, and it would seem that he was practically regarded as her child after the plaintiff grew up, he became the Village Munsif and was unable to manage his own land. The sons of the 1st defendant cultivated the plaintiff's lands and generally h...
T.C. Xavier Vs. E.C. Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad614; 87Ind.Cas.216; (1925)48MLJ268
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The respondent in election petition O.P. No. 4 of 1922 before the Subordinate Judge's Court at Cochin was declared by the returning officer as the candidate duly elected for B ward in an election held for that ward in Cochin Municipality. The petitioner Mr. Joseph filed a petition for having it declared that the respondent's election was not valid and that it should also be declared that he was the person properly elected by the constituency at the election held. A civil revision petition has been filed in this Court on behalf of the respondent to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge by which he declared that the petitioner was the person who was duly elected and that the declaration that the respondent was the duly elected candidate was wrong.2. To begin with, I am far from satisfied that on the facts of this case a revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is competent. There is no question which can be said to be a question of jurisdict...
Sudalaimuthu thevan (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sappani thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad446; (1925)48MLJ185
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff claims the suit property as his and seeks to recover it from the defendant. The original owner was one Palavesam Asari and the defendant's father was his tenant in respect of the suit property. Palavesam Asari having died, his sisters took possession of his estate and got the defendant's father to execute in their favour Ex. B, dated 23rd September, 1899, which is described as a lease deed. The lease was for three years and, under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it became determined by efflux of time in the year 1902. After the death of Palavesam Asari's sisters their children executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff.2. The short question to be decided is, is the suit in time? After the determination of the lease in 1902 no new tenancy was created, because neither the lessor nor his legal representatives assented to the lessee continuing in possession. Under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a leasee remains in pos...
Subbamma and anr. Vs. Adimoorthappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad635
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for the purpose of getting a declaration that the adoption made by the 1st defendant of the 2nd defendant is invalid. That the form of adoption was gone through was found by the lower Courts. The 1st defendant alleged that she had the authority of her deceased husband to make an adoption and this was found against, both by the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge and it is a question of fact and I cannot interfere with this finding in Second appeal.2. The appeal may be disposed of shortly. The plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 were the nearest reversionary heirs to the estate of the last male holder. Defendants 4 to 6 gave their consent to the adoption. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were not consulted and they did not give their consent. The question arises, in these circumstances, what is the effect of the adoption made by the 1st defendant?3. It was held in Venkamma v. Subramaniam (1907) 30 Mad. 50 that failure to consult ...
Guntreddi Mallu Nayudu and ors. Vs. Guntreddi Chinna Gavuru Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1146
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I think this petition should be dismissed. The only question, before me is whether both the lower-Courts were right in holding that the suit property was an 'estate' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Court of first instance held that it; was and returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. The lower-Appellate Court in a short and summary judgment agreed with the Court of first, instance and dismissed the appeal.3. It has been argued before me by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that all that has been admitted in this case is that the property was a darmilla inam and that, from that alone it did not follow that the predecessors of the plaintiff were not the owners of the kudivaram when the inam was granted. He also referred to an unreported decision in the case of Muryala Bommayya v. Gorle Kannan Naidu S.A. No. 752 of 1922 by Krishnan and Odgers, JJ. In that case no question of the jurisdiction of a civil Court was taken ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »