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.
Uttaravelli Peda Appala Naidu and anr. Vs. Uttaravelli Appala Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1148; 87Ind.Cas.711
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the plaint property was not included in the mortgage-deed executed by the 7th defendant in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. The plaint property, according to the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff, was taken delivery of by the 7th defendant. Evidently, the plaint property was included in the schedule attached to the plaint filed by the 7th defendant for redemption, i.e., O.S. No. 296 of 1913. The plaintiffs did not raise any objection as to the items not included in the mortgage. They should have objected to the correctness of the plaint schedule and should have contended that some of the items included in the schedule were not mortgaged by the 7th defendant. The plaintiffs, owing to some reason or other did not do so, and the plaint property was treated as one of the properties covered by the mortgage and 7th defendant got possession of it under the redemption decree. The plaintiff now sues for recovery of the plaint...
Vabala Reddi Mallayya and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pushvati Alaka N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.13
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal, by Mr. Appa Rao for the appellant, is that the present suit is incompetent, as the plaintiff did not get a decree from the Collector fixing the rate of rent.2. His contention is that Section 77 of the Estates Land Act had no application to a case like the present one, as the amount claimed is not an arrear of rent; for, the rent had not been fixed by the Collector or agreed upon by the tender of patta and the exchange of muchilika. The defendants are admittedly ryots, who have occupancy right to their holding.3. The plaintiff sued in O.S. No. 699 of 1914 in the District Munsif s Court of Chodavaram, for ejecting the appellants from their holdings on the ground that they were not tenants.4. The District Munsif found that the appellants were tenants and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge On second appeal, the High Court interfered, only with regard to the claim for rent5. When the appellants are found ...
Veera Raghavachariar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.485
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this second appeal is that the acquisition of house-sites for panchamas is not a public purpose and the Court can go into the question whether it is a public purpose or not, notwithstanding the notification by the Government that the acquisition was for a public purpose. The second point raised is that Section 6, Clause 3 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is ultra vires of Indian Legislature inasmuch as the clause states that the said declaration, meaning the declaration by the Government, shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purposes or for a Company as the case may be. It is convenient to consider the first two points together.2. The argument of Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar, for the appellant, is that by enacting the provision in Clause 3 of Section 6, that the declaration shall be conclusive evidence, that the land is needed for public purposes or for a Company, the Indian Legislature has taken away the right of suit by t...
Chidambara Velan Vs. Sangili Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ111
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit to set aside a sale for arrears of rent held under the Madras Estates Land Act on the allegation that the sale was fraudulent. It is objected by Mr. B. Sitarama Rao for the appellant that, the Munsif having held that there was no fraud and the Subordinate Judge having eventually found against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit, there was no notice to the plaintiff that the various points to be detailed hereafter were going to be alleged against him. Now the written statement alleges in paragraph 8 various details of what are called fraud. It may, I think, be at once stated that there was no fraud in the ordinary acceptance of the term, but the word seems to have been used rather loosely and widely to cover the various irregularities alleged in the conduct of the sale. The District Munsif, as is clear from his judgment, allowed three matters to be agitated by the defence before him, namely, the issue of patta, the service of notice, and the proclamation of ...
Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Manager, R. Krishnaswami Aiyang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad454; (1925)48MLJ147
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that Sundararama Sastri who let the plaintiff into possession was not the landholder within the meaning of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act. The contention of Mr. A. Srinivasa Aiyangar is that though a person may be a landholder within the meaning of Section 5 yet he is not landholder for the purpose of letting a tenant into possession of ryoti land so as to give him occupancy right under Section 6. The evidence on record shows that Sundararama Sastri was appointed trustee by the temple committee in 1911 and he was recognised as landholder by the revenue authorities. Section 3, Clause 5, para. 2 says: 'The person who shall be deemed to be the landholder for such purposes shall be the person whom the Collector subject to any decree or order of a competent Civil Court may recognize or nominate as such landholder in accordance with rules to be framed by the Local Government in this behalf.' The simple question is whether the w...
Lakshminarayana Kulluraya Vs. Rajamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad796; 95Ind.Cas.1002
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff's suit was for recovery of possession of suit properties and also for rent. The properties were given on a permanent lease by the plaintiff in 1904 to defendants 5 and 6, who are the contesting parties in the Second Appeal. These properties ware set apart for a family religious trust. On the death of the lessor, the present plaintiff who has come into management of this trust instituted this suit, for possession of the properties. The lower Appellate Court gave a decree for the rent, but the relief as regards possession was declined, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, under Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act, In so holding, the learned Judge relied on a decision of this Court, in Baluswamy Iyer v. Venkitaswamy Naicken [1917] 40 Mad. 745 which held that in a case like the present one, Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act applied. But the decision has been subsequently reversed by the Privy Council ...
Haji Sahib Hameed Labbai Vs. S. Mahamad Khather Pillai Marakayar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad985
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition by the defendant in a suit now pending before the District Munsif's Court at Paramakudi to revise an order made by the District Munsif allowing the plaintiffs to sue under Order 1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. in a representative capacity on behalf of all the worshippers at a mosque. The contention on behalf of the defendant is twofold. It is stated that there is a large body of worshippers who have not agreed with the plaintiffs either in the institution of the suit or in the proceedings that led up to it, and that, therefore, it cannot be stated that all the worshippers at this mosque have the same interest. It seems to me that, if the construction of the terms of. Order 1, Section 8, C.P.C., should be that it is only where all the members of the body are of the same opinion with regard to the litigation as the plaintiffs that the rule should be applied, then the provision contained in the rule would be practically useless. Most of th...
Asirvada Nadan Vs. S. Vedamuthu Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1147
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in a Small Cause suit from the decree of the Subordinate' Judge of Tuticorin dismissing the action. The plaintiff's suit was that there was an oral settlement of account in 1915 in respect of a debt advanced by him to the defendant about four years previous thereto and that at the time of this settlement it was arranged that he should be put in possession of a piece of land belonging to the defendant for the purpose of his enjoying the land in lieu of the interest payable' for the amount. Under the settlement a sum of Rs. 200 was, according to the plaintiff, agreed to be paid to the defendant. This suit being a Small Cause suit should be deemed to be based only on the personal covenant on the part of the defendant to pay the amount. The learned Subordinate Judge found that assuming : a promise to pay at the time of the settlement in the year 1915, there was no consideration for it because at that time the origi...
Hajee Sahib Hameed Labbai Vs. S. Mahamud Khather Pillai Marakayar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.1022
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition by the defendant in a suit now pending before the District Munsifs Court at Paramakudi to revise an order made by the District Munsif allowing the plaintiffs to sue under Order 1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. in a representative capacity on behalf of all the worshippers at a mosque.2. The contention on behalf of the defendant is two-fold. It is stated that there is a large body of worshippers who have not agreed with the plaintiffs either in the institution of the suit or in the proceedings that led up to it and that, therefore, it cannot be stated that all the worshippers at this mosque have the same interest. It seems to me that, if the construction of the terms of Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C., should be that it is only where all the members of the body are of the same opinion with regard to the litigation as the plaintiffs that the rule should be applied then the provision contained in the rule would be practically useless. Most of the ca...
P. Veerappa Naidu Vs. Avudayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad438; (1925)48MLJ106
1. We are agreed in thinking that the question whether the High Court, when exercising its powers of Criminal Revision, has inherent power to award costs to the successful party, has been settled by the decision of the Full Bench in Sankaralingam Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar (1922) I L K 45 M 913 : 43 MLJ 369 (FB). Meanwhile the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code has not made any difference, since the Legislature has not acted upon the suggestion thrown out by Coutts-Trotter, J., who sat upon the abovementioned Full Bench, that in order to check the activities of private prosecutors in revision proceedings the Court should be invested with power in proper cases to award costs. It is true that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the inherent power of the High Court is new. But as observed by the learned Chief Justice in Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar : AIR1922Mad502 the Court cannot by invoking its inherent powers extend the powers given t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »