Chennai Court April 1924 Judgments
P. Ramalingappa and ors. Vs. A. Narayanappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad368
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 toll are the appellants. The facts of the case are clearly stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the District Munsif's judgment. The suit properties belonged to Pullanna and after his death, his three sons Pedda Chowdappa Chinna Chowdappa and Ranganna became entitled to them. The plaintiffs may be described as the decree-holder-Purchasers who purchased the properties in execution of a money-decree in Original Suit No. 661 of 1899 obtained against Pullanna and his children. The decree was passed on the 27th of March, 1900 and the sale was held on the 17th of January, 1913. On two hypothecations executed by Ranganna and Pedda Chowdappa of their shares in the properties, suits. Original Suits Nos. 719 and 720 of 1911 were instituted by the mortgagees. Preliminary decrees for sale were passed; on the 5th of September, 1911 and final decrees in 1915. The decree-holder's representatives, the present defendants Nos. 1 to 3, applied for the sale of these, pro...
Tag this Judgment!Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. P. Manikyanayanim Varu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad378
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Tirupati in Small Cause Suit No. 136 of 1921. The District Munsif dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that no jodi is claimable from the tenants. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the question whether the defendants are liable to pay jodi is res judicata by reason of two previous decisions, one in Original Suit No. 79 of 1904, Exhibit G and the other in Original Suit No. 439 of 1908, Exhibit G. In Exhibit G the question was specifically raised in issue 1 whether no jodi at all was payable. An additional issue was raised whether the defendants therein were not barred by res judicata from raising the plea that they were not liable to pay jodi to the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the decision in the Original Suit No. 79 of 1904 was res judicata between the parties. It is now urged on the respondents' side that the defendants were ex parte and, therefore, the judgment is not bindi...
Tag this Judgment!GanjaIn Manikyamba and anr. Vs. Pasala Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ393
1. This appeal is against an order of the Sub-Judge of Rajahmundry returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court; and the Subordinate Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit but only the Revenue Court had. The suit was for the recovery of possession of certain properties on the strength of a lease alleged to have been given orally to the Ist defendant by the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant denied the lease and claimed occupancy rights in the lands and also pleaded that the plaintiff as Inamdar was a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore this suit could not be tried by the Civil Court. The Subordinate Judge decided on the first part of issue 3 that the suit land is a Darmila inam; and that finding we must accept. He then considered himself bound by the ruling of the Full Bench reported in Brahmayya v. Achiraju I.L.R. (1922) M 716 : 43 MLJ 229 to hold that the plaintiff as a Darmila inamdar was a landholder within the...
Tag this Judgment!Gollapudi Seshayya Vs. Nadendla Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad877; (1924)47MLJ646
Phillips, J.1. The respondent in both these appeals is one Subbayya, the adopted son of Ramachandrudu. He was dissatisfied with his father's misconduct and spendthrift ways and, consequently, wanted to file a suit for partition of the family property. As he had not sufficient funds to finance this litigation, he entered into relations with the appellant Seshayya who is a private vakil. On the 1st of November, 1916, Subbayya executed a sale deed in favour of Seshayya for Rs. 1,000, under which he sold one-half of his share in the family properties. Admittedly the consideration was fixed at a low figure on the ground that Subbayya's father was wasting the family property and alienating the same and that consequently the properties that would be recovered for Subbayya's share might be considerably less than what he really ought to have. It is found that Seshayya paid a sum of Rs. 600 towards the consideration for the sale deed, and a suit was filed by Subbayya and Seshayya jointly in 1918...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gangaraju Bahadur and ors. Vs. V. Ramachandra Deo Maharajulum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad187
ORDER1. The respondent contends that this application does not lie under Section 109tJ Civil Procedure Code, and this Court cannot grant leave. We think this contention is well founded. The order sought to be appealed against was an order passed by us, on an application to pass a final decree, in terms of a preliminary decree of the Privy Council, or to transmit the records to the Subordinate Judge to pass such a decree; we made an order so transmitting, but in doing so we overruled an objection that the suit had abated. Ours was not an order passed by us on appeal, so as to fall within Clause (a) of Section 109, Civil Procedure Code; and we are not prepared, to certify the case, as a fit one for appeal, under Clause (c), as the appeal relates to a pure technicality and there is no substantial question of law involved in it.2. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Co. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad292; 84Ind.Cas.912
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs who are piece-goods merchants, allege that they entered into certain contracts with the defendants, for the purchase of a number of bales of piece goods, under contracts Nos. 3311, 3348 to 3350, 3357 to 3360, 3363 to 3368 and 3374, between December 1919 and July and August, 1920, that they took delivery of a number of bales, and 120 bales remaining to be delivered to the plaintiffs, that on the 28th September, 1921, an arrangement was come to, between the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiffs were to take delivery of the 120 packages, within nine months from that date, that the defendants were to deliver the said goods to the plaintiffs, against the promissory notes of the plaintiffs payable 60 days from the date of the promissory notes and that the defendants were to pay the plaintiffs an allowance of Rs. 30,000 subject to certain conditions. The plaintiffs took delivery of 15 bales against promissory note. Ten defeadant...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbaraju Vs. I. Narayanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad321
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant to set aside the razinamah decree in Original Suit No. 52 of 1911 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court of Tanuku. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Thammiraju, Gangaraju the third defendant, and Venkatraju, father of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were brothers. Their father Subbaraju took Appalaraju, his nephew, into his family for helping him in cultivation and gave him his daughter in marriage. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of Appalaraju. He (appellant) lived and worked in the family as one of its members, disposed of his own properties and increased the family properties with the proceeds thereof. Later on, the three brothers and Appalaraju effected a partition of all the family properties into four equal scares, but continued joint cultivation till about-twelve years ago. In 1911, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a s...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraja Aiyar and ors. Vs. Natesa Aiyar Alias Nataraja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1013
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are the appellants in this second appeal. Their predecessor-in-interest, the 1st defendant, purchased the suit properties under a sale-deed executed by one Mangalathammal, since deceased, and her sons, defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The present plaintiff who is also her son, was a minor at the time of execution of the said sale-deed, and the 2nd defendant, his eldest brother, purported to execute the sale-deed for himself and in his capacity as the guardian of his minor brother, the present plaintiff. Mangalathammal obtained the properties under a deed of gift, Ex. I, executed in her favour by her father. After he attained his majority, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit to set aside the sale so far as it concerned his one-fourth share. The plaintiff's case is that, under the deed of gift, Mangalathammal had only a life estate and that he and his brothers had a vested remainder after her death, and consequently the sale was not valid and ...
Tag this Judgment!Penumatsa Subbaraju Vs. Indukuri Narayanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.56
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant to set aside the razinamah decree in Original Suit No. 52 of 1911 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court of Tanuku. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Thammiraju, Gangaraju the third defendant, and Ven-katraju father of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were brothers. Their father Subba-raju took Appalaraju, his nephew, into his family for helping him in cultivation and gave him his daughter in marriage. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of Appalaraju. He (appellant) lived and worked in the family as one of its members, disposed of his own properties and increased the family properties with the proceeds thereof Later on the three brothers and Appalaraju effected a partition of all the family properties into four equal shares, but continued joint cultivation till about twelve years ago. In 1911, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraja Iyer and ors. Vs. Natesa Iyer Alias Nataraja Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.993
Madhvan Nair, J.1. Defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are the appellants in this second appeal. Their predecessor-in-interest, the 1st defendant purchased the suit properties tinder a sale-deed executed by one Mangalathammal since deceased and her sons defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The present plaintiff who is also her son, was a minor at the time of execution of the said sale-deed, and the 2nd defendant his eldest brother purported to execute the sale-deed for himself and in his capacity as the guardian of his minor brothers, the present plaintiff. Mangalathammal obtained the properties under a deed of gift, Ex. I, executed in her favour by her father. After he attained his majority, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit to set aside the sale so far as it concerned his one fourth share. The. plaintiff's case-is that, under the deed of gift, Mangalathammal had only a life-estate and that he and his brothers had a vested remainder after her death, and consequently the sale was not valid and bind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »