Chennai Court July 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.
Pogula HussaIn Reddy Vs. Yasaggari Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad86; 83Ind.Cas.140; (1924)47MLJ545
Wallace, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court sending back a suit for trial by the first Court. The plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 here, sued in 1920 to establish their right to, and to recover possession of, 2 3 share of the suit property. The property belonged to one Chinnayya who died without issue leading a widow. She sold the property to the 1st defendant's father in 1886 and died in 1920. The plaintiff's suit was filed after her death, the plaintiffs being the actual reversioners then. Their claim is met in limine by defendants 1 to 7, who now represent the alienee, on the plea of res judicata.2. It is not disputed that the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 at the time when he was a presumptive reversioner to the widow in 1898 filed O.S. No. 320 of 1898 against the widow and her alienee for a declaration that the alienation was not binding on the reversioners, and that he lost that suit. The first Court has held that, as that suit wa...
Ayinavalli Narayanamurthi and ors. Vs. Bulusu Achayya Sastrulu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad411; 85Ind.Cas.188; (1924)47MLJ714
1. In the village of Ayinavalli, in a public temple on the bank of Godavari, there is a shrine dedicated to Visveswaraswami. In the village of Mukteswaram, in another public temple also on the bank of Godavari, there is a shrine dedicated to Mukteswaraswami. Both these shrines would appear to have been, if not constructed and established, at any rate endowed by the Peddapur Samasthanam some time in the last years of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th. Almost from that time, the members of the same family would seem to have been officiating as Archakas at both these shrines. Against the five persons at present admittedly holding the office of Archakaship in both these shrines two suits have been instituted by the same set of plaintiffs, one in respect of Visveswaraswami temple. Both these suits were instituted under the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with the sanction of the Advocate-General for, inter alia, a declaration that the defendants are not the ...
R.V. Palanisami Pillai Vs. R. Srinivasarangachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad160; 85Ind.Cas.322; (1924)47MLJ795
1. This case arises out of an election dispute in the Municipality of Srirangam. The petitioner in this Court Mr. R.V. Palanisami Pillai obtained 37 votes and the respondent Mr. Srinivasarangachariar 14 votes at a poll for filling up the vacancy of Councillor held on 29th September, 1923. The respondent filed an election petition contending inter alia that the petitioner's name had been wrongly entered in the electoral roll and therefore he was disqualified under Section 48(1), Madras Act V of 1920. ' No person shall be qualified for election as a Councillor unless the name of such person appears on the electoral roll....' The Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly enquired into the petition and found that, although the petitioner's name had not been clearly entered in the preliminary roll, the matter had been taken before the revising authority and his claim for registration had been admitted, Exs. D, DI. But the revising authority under Rule 7 of the Rules for the Preparation of Electoral...
Nambi Veettil Tarwad Tavazhi Karnavan and Manager Raman Nair Vs. Athik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad233; 83Ind.Cas.89
Devadoss, J.1. The only point urged in this Second Appeal is that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in having given a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the cists incurred in claim proceedings. In support of his order the learned Subordinate Judge relies upon Dwarkanath Kundu v. Mahendra Nath Roy (1913) 16 C.L.J. 437 I do not see how that case supports him. The suit contemplated by Order 21, Rule 63 is a suit for a declaration. Rule 63 is in these terms : Where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive.' The order does not say that the claim order will be vacated by reason of the judgment in the suit. The suit which is contemplated by Rule 63 is a suit for declaration of the right either of the claimant or of the creditor, and the Court simply gives a decree declaring the right...
Dada Sahib and ors. Vs. Azi Mohideen Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad287; 84Ind.Cas.896
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge made a mis-statement of facts in his judgment. It was urged that the statement ' that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the recitals of even one of them' was not correct. On going through the evidence of the plaintiff, it is quite clear that though he says he was aware of the transactions, yet he was not aware of the recitals in the various documents. No other mis-statement of fact has been relied upon and I find this point against the appellants.2. The second point, urged on behalf of the appellants, is that the defendant has been able to keep out the plaintiff for the statutory period and thereby has acquired a right by adverse possession. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are brothers belonging to a Muhammadan family. They are tenanfcs-in-cornmon unless the defendant is able to show that the plaintiff was kept out of possession of the properties to his knowledge ha cannot claim to have been i...
(Julia Mary) Margaret Fernandez Vs. Severina Sobina Coelho
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad418; 84Ind.Cas.1029
1. The suit, from which the appeal arises, was instituted by Julia Mary Margaret Fernandez for an account of the rent due, in respect of a garden and Bungalow, item No. 1, in the plaint schedule and for the payment to the plaintiff after deducting all outgoings for taxes, repairs, etc., of a moiety of the net balance, The claim is based en the footing of a legacy to the plaintiff, by her maternal grand-mother Mary Magdalene Coelho, the testatrix. The will is dated 25th July 1907, and the testatrix died in August, 1908. The defendant, the daughter of the testatrix, was the executrix under that will. By her said will, the testatrix bequeathed the garden and Bungalow, item No. 1, in the plaint schedule, to the defendant, along with other properties, immovable and moveable, and also directed that half the net income from the same should be paid to the plaintiff, for life and after her death to her children. There is also a provision in the will, to the effect that, if the property should b...
Authinarayana Iyer and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad854; 82Ind.Cas.481
Devadoss, J.1. The first question argued in this second appeal, was that Exhibit B was the consideration for Exhibit A and the plaintiff, way not entitled to claim a statutory charge for the unpaid purchase-money. From a perusal of Exhibits A and B it is clear that the vendor did not accept Exhibit B as consideration for the sale. According to Exhibits A and B the arrangement was that the vendee should execute a bond for the unpaid purchase-money, Undertaking to pay the amount on the happening of a certain event, namely, the attaining of majority of Dharmaraja Iyer. It cannot be said that the vendor accepted the bond as consideration for the price of the property sold. The vendee undertook to pay the price of the land sold to him on the happening of a certain event. I find against the appellant so far as this contention is concerned.2. The next contention is that the suit is barred by limitation as more than 12 years have elapsed from the date of the sale. The plaintiff's case is that ...
P. Chenga Reddy and anr. Vs. Surabhi Venkatalakshmi Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad274
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the, decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chitoor, in A.S. No. 183 of 1921. The appeal is by the defendants who are tenants of the plaintiff in Swarnambupuram Agraharam. They claim that they are tenants within the moaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and, if that is not allowed, at any rate that they have established an occupancy right and also a right only to pay their rent in cash. These are the only three points which are raised in this appeal.2. I do not find that the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in any respect. The document under which the grant of this Inam was originally made is Exhibit A and I agree that from the terms of Exhibit A it is clear that there was a grant of the kudivaram as well as melvaram. The lands granted under Exhibit A seem to have been granted for house-site. It is extremely difficult to understand exactly what Exhibit B means, but I do not think that in any way affects the interpretation of Exhibit A. Once it is foun...
Thambiran Chetty Vs. Nataraja Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad370; 83Ind.Cas.127
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is whether the second defendant takes the bequest under his father's Will absolutely or whether ha takes it as a Hindu son as property inherited by him from his father. The facts are simple. The second defendant, the eldest son of the testator was divided from him on the date of the Will. His younger son lived with him, and he and his father formed members of a joint Hindu family. The property devised under the Will was the self-acquisition of the father. It is well settled that when a member of a joint Hindu family has self-acquisition that self-acquisition unless devised by Will, goes to the undivided member in preference to a divided member. If the testator had not made a Will, the whole of this self-acquisition would have become the property of the first defendant. By the Will, the testator directed his younger son, the first defendant, to pay Rs. 3,000 to the second defendant. The words of the bequest are 'Though it is so,...
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Dhanakoti Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad873; 85Ind.Cas.840; (1924)47MLJ614
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application made under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is in the nature of an application for habeas corpus. The applicant is the mother of the girl who is said to be illegally detained. There was some dispute as regards the age of this girl, and there was conflicting medical testimony on the point. But Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar who appeared for the girl as well as for her step-sister (from whose custody the minor girl was produced) agreed to proceed with the application on the footing that the age of the girl was a little over 17 and under 18. The parties belong to a wealthy Gramani family residing at Kodambakkam outside the Municipal limits of Madras. The members of this family have shown themselves extremely litigious and repeated applications have been made before this Court from time to time in regard to disputes that have arisen between them. It is unnecessary to go into these various matters, because the more essential of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »