Chennai Court February 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.
Bollapragada Subbarayadu and ors. Vs. Valluri Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad907
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the purchaser of the proprietary interest in Pedamamidipalli, a whole village in Elamanchilli Zamindari Estate to eject the defendants who are tenants holding plaint items 1 to 16 whioh were once part of a darimilla inam or failing the relief of ejectment, to declare the plaintiff's right to impose full rates of rents on the lands and to give the plaintiff a decree for recovery of rent at nine bags of grain per aero for three years The suit lands were granted about 1819 to the defendant's ancestors for rendering karnam service. In 1910, Government purported to enfranchise these lands and the plaintiff filed a suit O.S. 16 of 1911 for setting aside the enfranchisement and for a declaration that the right of resumption rested with him and not with Government. In this suit he was finally successful in th8 High Court. The present suit is for ejectment of the defendants. The lower Court gave the plaintiff a decree for possession with mesne profits. Def...
Kalyani Pillai and ors. Vs. Thiruvenkatasami Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad695; (1924)47MLJ154
Phillips, J.1. Objection is taken by appellants to the execution of a decree of the Privy Council. It is first contended that, as three of the respondents were dead when the appeal was heard and judgment was pronounced, the decree against them is a nullity. Section 23 of William IV, Ch. 41, however, cures the defect in the judgment for it enacts that the order shall have full force and effect notwithstanding the death of any of the parties interested therein. Vide Deonandan Prasad Singh v. Janki Singh (1920) 5 PLJ 314. The deceased respondents must therefore be considered as parties to the decree notwithstanding their death before it was passed.2. It is next urged that the application to bring on record their legal representatives is barred by limitation, being made more than three years after their death; but Article 181 of the Limitation Act gives three years from the date when the right to apply accrued. The right to implead parties to a decree cannot arise until the decree is passe...
Yellappa Vs. Golla Swami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad855
Odgers, J.1. In this case, I have to determine the quantum of interest taken by tbe son's daughter of the testator by his will Ex. A The operative words are:'You shall enjcy after my death all the properties moveable and immoveable'.... 'You can enjoy all the said properties attending to my obsequies after my death and settling and matters of the debts, etc, incurred by me'2. The testator further reoites that tbe properties left by him are his divided properties. The District Munsif has held that the legatee took an absolute estate and the Subordinate Judge that only a life-estate was taken. The reason for the latter decision are first that the word 'enjoy' could not confer an absolute estate, and secondly that as the legatee is a female, there is no presumption that she takes an absolute estate by the word 'enjoy'. In the case in Gurusami Pillai v. Sivakami Ammal (1895) 18 Mad. 347, the words were 'shall enjoy for their lives' as opposed to 'shall enjoy the whole property.' The expres...
Kolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors. Vs. Veena Tolasi Babu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad602; (1924)46MLJ463
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the application for review either on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record or on the ground that there was ' other sufficient reason ' under Order 47, R. I. An appeal against an order granting review may be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in Order 47, Rule 7. No such grounds exist in the present case and can be urged in this appeal. Then the question arises as this is a final appeal from the decree itself, can the decision be challenged on grounds other than those contained in Rule 7? If the grounds relate to the granting of the review, in my opinion, the grounds, must be those that are set out in Rule 7. [See Baroda Churn Ghose v. Govinda Proshad Tewary ILR (1895) Cal. 984 Bubiram Chowdhury v. Bishea Perkash Naran Singh ILR (1897) C 878 and Gopala Iyer v. Ramasami Sastrial ILR (1907) M 49 : 1907 17 MLJ 603.] This will not of course preclude the appellant from arguing the secon...
Taduri Ramachandra Jagannatharao and ors. Vs. Vadrevu Viswesam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad682; (1924)46MLJ590
Ramesam, J.1. Suit by the plaintiff to recover (1) a sum of Rs. 2,500 deposited with 1st defendant on 6th July 1917 and (2) a sum of Rs. 350 payable to plaintiff for money paid for 1st defendant. The defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of 1st defendant who formed with him, members of a joint family up to 1918. In that year a suit was filed by the present 2nd defendant against his father and brothers for partition. No written statement was filed and the suit was compromised and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 23-1-1920. Under the compromise, provision was made for paying off most of the debts contracted by the 1st defendant but not the suit debt. No specific properties we're allotted to the 1st defendant and it was arranged that a maintenance of Rs. 30 should be paid to him every month. The present suit was filed on 6-7-1920 and the defendants 2 to 5 are sought to be made liable with reference to the shares in their hands of what had been prior to 1920, joint family properl...
A. Venkata Seshamma Vs. A. Appa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad125
Ramesam, J.1. In this case, the 1st defendant is the appellant before us. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property which was the subject of the suit did not belong to the 1st defendant but belonged to the 2nd defendant and was therefore liable to be attached by the plaintiff in execution of a decree obtained by him against the 2nd defendant.2. The first defendant is the wife of the Second defendant. She claims the property under a will of her mother-in-law to whom it was conveyed by a sale-deed, Ex. VII, dated 23rd February 1914, by the 2nd defendant's father Venkataratnam. It is the case of all the parties that the property originally belonged to Venkataratnnm's maternal grandfather and devolved on him as daughter's son : vide Ex. XIX.3. The first point argued by the appellant before us is that when the 2nd defendant was adopted by his father, there was an agreement according to which the adopted son should not share with the father in the properties t...
Jagannatha Rao and Four ors. Vs. Viswesam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad621
Ramesam, J.1. Suit by the plaintiff to recover (1) a sum of Rs. 2,500 deposited with first defendant on 6th July 1917 and (2) a sum of Rs. 350 payable to plaintiff for money paid for the first defendant. The defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of first defendant who formed with him members of a joint family up to 1918. In that year a suit was filed by the present second defendant against his father and brothers for partition. No written statement was filed and the suit was compromised and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 23rd January 1920. Under the compromise, provision was made for paying off most of the debts contracted by the first defendant but not the suit debt. No specific properties were allotted to the first defendant and it was arranged that a maintenance of Rs. 30 should be paid to him every month. The present suit was filed on 6th July 1920 and the defendants 2 to 5 are sought to be made liable with reference to the shares in their hands of what had been prior t...
Avararala Venkata Seshamma Vs. Avararala Appa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.79
1. In this case the 1st defendant is the appellant before us. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property which was the subject of the suit did not belong to the 1st defendant, but belonged to the 2nd defendant and was, therefore, liable to be attached by the plaintiff in execution of a decree obtained by him against the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. She claims the property under a will of her mother-in-law to whom it was conveyed by a sale-deed Ex. VII, dated 23rd February 1914 by the second defendant's father Venkataratnam. It is the case of all the parties that the property originally belonged to Venkataratnam's maternal grand-father and devolved on him as daughter's son, Vide Ex. XIX.2. The first point argued by the appellant before us is that when the 2nd defendant was adopted by his father there was an agreement according to which the adopted son should not share with the father in the properties the latter obtain...
Kolachina Venkata Seetharamayya and ors. Vs. Veena Tulasibabu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.548
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the application for review either on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record or on the ground that there was 'other sufficient reason' under Order XLVII, Rule 1. An appeal against an order grantingreviewmay be challenged only on one of the grounds specified in Order XLVII, Rule 7. No such grounds exist in the present case and can be urged in this appeal. Then the question arises, as this is a final appeal from the decree itself, can the decision be challenged on grounds other than those. contained in Rule 7? If the grounds relate to the granting of the review, in my opinion, the grounds must be those that are set out in Rule 7 [see Baroda Churn Ghose v. Gobind Proshad Tewary 22 C.P 984 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 653 Munni Ram Chowdhry v. Bishen Perkash Narain Singh 24 C.P 878 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1254 and Gopala Aiyar v. Ramasami Sastrial 31 M.P 49 : 17 M.L.J. 603 : 2 M.L.T. 519 This will not preclu...
Chidambara Gurukkal Alias Devendrasiva Puranthara Pandithar Vs. Sivagn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ598
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by an inamdar against his tenant.2. The first question to be decided is whether the grant to the predecessor of the plaintiff was of the land, or the grantee not owning the kudivaram, of the land revenue only. Section 3(d) of the Estates Land Act does not in terms apply because the suit concerns not a village but only a small plot of land. The point has however to be decided with reference to considerations similar to those that would apply if the case fell within that section. If the grant were forthcoming it would be the most valuable evidence but unfortunately the grant is not before the Court, although it is agreed that the land was granted some centuries ago during the period of the Madura Kings. The learned Subordinate Judge has on a consideration of the materials before him come to the conclusion that the inamdars were entitled only to the melvaram. I agree with him. Proceedings connected with the inam enquiry are relied up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »