Chennai Court September 1924 Judgments
Venkatasubbier Vs. Sundaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.318; (1925)48MLJ126
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff is the son of a step-sister of one Narasimha Aiyar. The first defendant is the widow of Narasimha Aiyar. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the 'sons of another step-sister of Narasimha Aiyar. Plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the alienation made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not binding upon the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as they are the re-versioners to the estate of Narasimha Aiyar(?). Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not the nearest reversioners and that one Subbu Narayana Aiyar, the adopted son of (Venkatagiri Aiyar?)the husband of Venkachi Ammal, the sister of Narasimha Aiyar. was the nearest reversioner to him.2. The District Munsif found that the alienation was not for purposes which could bind the reversioners and dismissed the suit on the ground that Subbu Narayana Aiyar was the nearest reversioner and not the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff's appeal to the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbiar Vs. Sundaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad340
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff is the sort of a step-sister of one Narasimha Aiyar. The first defendant is the widow of Narasimha Aiyar. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of another step-sister of Narasimha Aiyar. Plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the alienation made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding upon the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4, as they are the reversioners to the estate of Narasimha Aiyar. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not nearest. reversioners and that one Subba Narayana Aiyar, the adopted son of the husband of Venkachi Ammal, the sister of Narasimha Aiyar, was the nearest reversioner to him.2. The District Munsiff found that the alienation was not for purposes, which could bind the reversioners and dismissed the suit, on the ground that Subba Narayana Aiyar was the nearest reversioner and not the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff's appeal to the District Court was dismissed, ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chambu Vs. Pazani Alias Chambu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad740; 90Ind.Cas.980
Devadoss, J.1. This is a suit by a Melcharthdar. The Melcharthdar sues for the possession of property, in the hands of some members of the family, belonging to the tavazhi of the 4th defendant, who gave the Melcharth in plaintiff's favour. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, on the ground that the giving, of the Melcharth, in favour of the plaintiff, was not a bona fide mi and was not interest of the family. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge took the same view and held that the Karnavan maliciously granted the Melcharth, in order to prevent the defendants 2 and 3 from enjoying the property. The plaintiff has preferred this second Appeal.2. It is urged by Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, on behalf of the appellant, that the karnavan has got the power to demise property on kanom and after the expiry of the kanom give Melcharth and that his powers are unlimited, as regards the granting of Melcharth, provided the term of the kanom has expired. In this case, the kanom demise was in 1895, in favo...
Tag this Judgment!(Allamputi) Venkatasubbiah Vs. Chutti Venkatasubbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1032
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. My learned brother and myself Were divided in opinion as to the decision in this appeal, I being for allowing the appeal and toy learned brother for dismissing it. The question was argued as to whose judgment should prevail.2. It has been a uniform and invariable rule of this Court to apply Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code and to give effect to that judgment which confirms the decree of the lower Court, when the difference of opinion arises in appeals governed by Section 96 of the Code, The practice has been equally uniform to give effect under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent to the judgment of the senior Judge, when the Judges of the High Court are divided in opinion, when hearing appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. Following this course, it is obvious that the judgment of my learned brother should prevail. But Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar, the learned vakil for the appellant, has contended that the question has to be reconsidered in view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Subba Rao Vs. Motamari Lakshminarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1214; 92Ind.Cas.593
1. Assuming an appeal lies which is doubtful, we cannot interfere with the order of the Court below. The mortgagee is entitled to bring the properties to sale in any order he chooses. We cannot scrutinise his motives and even on the allegation of the appellant, there is nothing improper in those motives. The mortgagee cannot be in a worse position as to his rights because one of the mortgagor's properties has been purchased by some other person. The appeal is dismissed with costs of first respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Ananjaperumal Konar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Pichamuthu Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad332; 85Ind.Cas.394; (1924)47MLJ910
Devadoss, J.1. The main point argued in this second appeal is whether a stipulation to pay compound interest on default of payment of interest is penal.2.The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the 1st defendant the Subordinate Judge relying upon a decision of this Court reported in Venkataramiah Pillai v. Subramania Pillai 37 IndCas 799. held that the stipulation to pay compound interest was penal and allowed the plaintiff's claim for interest at 24 per cent. per annum and the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.3.The question is whether a bare stipulation to pay compound interest on default of payment of interest is penal. The respondent's vakil concedes that if a low rate of interest is provided for in the bond the stipulation to pay compound interest on default of payment of interest would not be penal.4. A bare stipulation to pay compound interest is not penal within the meaning of Section 74 of the Contract Act. Compound interest is paid in many busi...
Tag this Judgment!Dronamraju Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Pantulu Vs. Immani Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad825; 90Ind.Cas.138; (1925)48MLJ363
Devadoss, J.1. One Venkatrayudu Pantulu mortgaged the plaint properties to one Venkanna by two deeds, Exs. A and B on the 2nd May, 1865. The equity of redemption was sold by the Court in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor and was purchased by the plaintiff. He has brought the suit for the redemption of the mortgage against the defendants who are the representatives of Venkanna alleging that the mortgage debt has been discharged and that he is entitled to have an account taken of the rents and profits of the mortgaged property. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the mortgage as the term of 55 years fixed in the mortgage deed had not expired and he gave a decree for a certain amount which under the mortgage the mortgagee undertook to pay to the mortgagor. The plaintiff appealed and the Subordinate Judge of Ellore dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.2. The first contention is that he is entitled to redeem ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Devasigamony Vs. M.R. Sethuratna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1034; 87Ind.Cas.363
Ramesam, J.1. The facts are simple and are not in dispute. The office of the Vice-President, District Board, Trichinopoly, fall vacant and there was a fresh election on 6th October 1923. The 2nd respondent was proposed by Dewan Bahadur Pethachi Chettiar who also voted for the candidate proposed by him. An objection was taken that the proposer was not legally a member of the District Board, but was overruled. The 2nd respondent obtained 22 votes while the 1st respondent, the rival candidate, got 21 votes. The ground on which the membership of Mr. Pethachi Chettiar is questioned may be stated thus : Originally he was President of the Taluk Board of Karur, and as such ex-officio member of the District Board (Section 8 of the Act). He absented himself for three suoc3S9ive months (June, July and August) from the meetings of the Karur Taluk Board and under Section 56(1)(h) he ceased to hold his office. When he ceased to be a member of the Taluk Board, he vacated also his office as President ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Nagasami Aiyar Vs. N. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ755
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged for the appellant in this Second Appeal is that the purchase by the 1st defendant enured for the benefit of the plaintiff as well, and that he is, therefore, entitled to a decree, so far as his share is concerned. The finding is that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant defaulted to pay the Government revenue, in consequence of which the Revenue authorities brought the plaintiff's properties to sale, and it was sold in auction. The contention of Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the appellant is that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are co-owners, that by the default of the co-owners the property was sold, that taking advantage of his position as such the 1st defendant bought the property and that, therefore, Section 90 of the Trusts Act applies to this case. In the first place I am not satisfied that the word ' co-owner ' applies to the case of joint pattadars who are ryotwari tenants. The plaintiff is the owner of specific items of property, and ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Nagaswami Aiyar Vs. N. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad288
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged for the appellant in this second appeal is that the purchase by the 1st defendant enured for the benefit of the plaintiff as well, and that he is, therefore, entitled to a decree so far as his share is concerned. The finding is that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant defaulted to pay the Government revenue, in consequence of which the revenue authorities brought the plaintiff's properties to sale, and it was sold in auction. The contention of Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the appellant is that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are co-owners, that by the default of the co-owners the property was sold, that taking advantage of his position as such the 1st defendant bought the property and that, therefore, Section 90 of the Trusts Act applies to this case In the first place I am not satisfied that the word 'co-owner' applies to the case of joint pattadars who are ryotwari tenants. The plaintiff is the owner of specific items of property, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »