Chennai Court September 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.
Velu thevan (Dead) and anr. Vs. Krishnasami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad591; 87Ind.Cas.297; (1925)48MLJ277
1. The 9th defendant, the judgment-debtor, is the appellant. A decree was passed on the 11th of November, 1913, against defendants 1 and 9 and the family properties of defendants 2 to 5, 10 and 12 for Rs. 1,453-12-0, subsequent interest and costs. Various ineffective applications were made to execute the decree. E. P. No. 156 of 1922 was filed for attachment and sale of the 9th defendant's properties. When the properties were attached he filed a petition objecting to the execution of the decree on the ground that the plaintiff undertook not to proceed against him and to exonerate him and executed an agreement to that effect on the 5th of November, 1913, namely before the date of the decree. The agreement relied upon by the appellant is in these terms: ' * * * *As I have taken a promissory note for Rs. 1,000 from you and from Narayanaswami Naicken, son of Thiru-malai Naicken, of Sankarapuram and as I have paid the Rs. 1,000 to Narayanaswami Naicken only and as you have signed in the pro...
Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. Maruthappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad448
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this Second Appeal, is that there is no evidence, for the finding of the Judge that the purchaser was an undivided brother of the decree-holder; and secondly, there is no evidence that the purchase was benami for the decree-holder. There is no evidence on record to show that the auction-purchaser is the undivided brother of the decree-holder. What is urged on the side of the respondents is that in the written statement, the defendants pleaded that the purchaser was an undivided brother of the decree-holder and the plaintiff did not deny the statement on oath. In the first place, there is no presumption that if there are two brothers they should be considered as members of a joint Hindu family. Secondly, granting that they were members of a joint Hindu family, there is no presumption, that one brother must necessarily buy property for the benefit of the other brother. Even if there was a joint family of which the decree-holder and the auction-pur...
K.P.P. Mayankutti and ors. Vs. K.P.P. Kathiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad441
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this Second Appeal is that the suit is maintainable. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit as laid was not maintainable. The plaintiffs did not sue for maintenance for the whole tavazhi. The plaintiff's suit as laid was for maintenance only for Certain members of the tavazhi on the ground that the tarwad had acquired some additional property after the karar, Ex. A, was entered into. It was held in Mahki Koyi v. Keloth Mammod : (1906)16MLJ275 , that, in order to sustain a suit of this nature, all the members of the tavazhi should sue for maintenance.2. The learned Judges distinctly say a suit can be brought by the members for an increased allotment of lands on the property, or for a money allowance. Here, the suit not being on behalf of all the members of the tavazhi, the Subordinate Judge rightly held that the suit was not maintainable. It is urged by the vakil lot the appellants that Mahki Koyi v. Keloth Mammod : (1906)16MLJ275 has been wron...
K. Sankaranarayana Iyer Vs. V.R. Venkatarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1045
Madhavan Nair, J.1 [After stating facts, his Lordship proceeded:] Various arguments have been advanced before me by appellant's learned vakil. It is first argued that the order rejecting the plaint in the prior suit is res judicata with regard to the subject-matter of the present suit and, therefore, the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed. The learned vakil argues that the disposal of the prior suit was on its merits and therefore, under Order 17, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. it must be considered that the case was disposed of after hearing, that it was a disposal on the merits, and as such the plaintiff's are precluded from bringing the present suit. In my opinion Order 17, Rule 3 does not apply to the facts of the present case. Order 17, Rule 3 applies only after a suit has been instituted and only after it has been adjourned, for the purpose of giving evidence. But in the present case it cannot be said that even the suit was instituted because the amended plaint was not filed. Even if we ...
President of the District Board Vs. G. Santhappa Naik and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad907
Devadoss, J.1. In these appeals the District Board of South Kanara is the appellant. The main contention for the appellant is that the contract entered into with the appellant by the plaintiffs did not become impossible of performance. The plaintiff's purchased the right to collect toll at two toll gates, Hoshangadi and Kollur during the official year 1918-10. In September of that year the Government pass-ed au ordinance that food grains etc., should cot be transported from the British territory to Mysore; and the Mysore Government also passed a similar ordinance as regards the transport of food grains, etc., from Mysore to South Kanara. In consequence to these two ordinances, the traffic in food grains, etc., was entirely stopped between South Kanara and Mysore. The plaintiffs naturally suffered a loss on account of the stoppage of the traffic in food grains, etc. They have brought two separate suits for the recovery of the amount collected from them. Both the Courts have given decree...
The President of District Board of South Kanara Vs. G. Santhappa Naick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.362
Devadoss, J.1. In these appeals the District Board of South Kanara is the appellant. The main contention for the appellant is that the contract entered into with the appellant by the plaintiffs did not become impossible of performance. The plaintiffs purchased the right to collect tolls at two toll gates, Hoshangadi and Kollur during the official year 1918-19. In September of that year the Government passed an ordinance that food grains, etc., should not be transported from the British territory to Mysore; and the Mysore Government also passed a similar ordinance as regards the transport of food grains, etc., from Mysore to South Kanara. In consequence of these two ordinances the traffic in food grains, etc., was entirely stopped between South Kanara and Mysore. The plaintiffs naturally suffered a loss on account of the stoppage of the traffic in food grains, etc., They have brought two separate suits for the recovery of the amount collected from them. Both the Courts have given decree...
Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. Vellayan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad338; 85Ind.Cas.349; (1924)47MLJ913
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for redemption. The plaint mentioned land belonged to one Venkataranganatha Naicker. It was sold in execution of a Small Cause decree against him and the plaintiff obtained it under a sale from one Tavazi Ambalam, whose father purchased it from the auction purchaser. The auction sale held on the 13th of July, 1891, was confirmed on the 14th of September, 1891. While the property was under attachment, the owner of the property mortgaged it to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant on the 15th June, 1891, under Ex. I. The mortgagee under Ex. I had paid off a prior mortgage existing on the property. The Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage under Ex. I was void under Section 64, Civil Procedure Code, that the defendant, the assignee of the mortgage interest, prescribed for an absolute title to the property, that the prior mortgage which was paid off by the defendant did not subsist at the time of Ex. I and that the plaintiff's suit was bar...
Muttathil Damodara Menon Vs. Ramakrishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad624
Devadoss, J.1. The only question argued in this Second Appeal is that the plaintiff acquired no right to the plaint properties under his sale-deed Ex. B. In order to understand this contention, it is necessary to mention a few facts, A Malabar Tarwad consisting of three Tavazhis agreed to divide the properties belonging to the tarwad for purposes of convenient management and enjoyment and embodied the arrangement in Ex. I, called Nischayapatram or Karar. Under the terms of Ex. I the 2nd defendant's tavazhi was to enjoy certain properties and the other two tavazhis were to enjoy some other items of property; and some properties set out in Schedule D to the Karar were to be kept in common for meeting common expenses of all the three tavaghis. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the karnavan of the tavazhi in Small Cause Suit No. 1347 of 1907 and attached some of the items and brought them to sale and purchased them himself. He now suea for possession of these items. The contention of...
Rajah of Pittapur Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad818
1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act. But the Government are not now interested in the appeal. The dispute is as to the respective amounts, to which the Rajah of Pittapur and his tenants are entitled. The land acquired consists of 4 plots of dry jeroyati land, in the village of Chollangi of Pittapur Zamindary, which is under the cultivation of the ryots. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after referring to the rates quoted in some of the sale-deeds in the village and after remarking that the land is dry, found that the proper rate is Rs. 200 per acre. He I allowed the Zamindar the value of the Melwaram, which was determined, by deducting the proportionate peishcush from the rent and multiplying by twenty. The zamindar claimed half the amount of the whole compensation for his interest. The Rajah, not satisfied with the award of the Revenue Divisional Officer made a reference to the District Court. The District Judge affirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ha f...
Appaswami Moithai Rao Vs. Gopalswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1087
Devadoss, J.1. The simple question in these second appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the pagudi from the defendants. Various contentions were raised in the Courts below. The District Judge found that the plaintiff was a landholder within the meaning of that word as used in the Estates Land Act. Granting that the plaintiff is a land-holder, the question is whether he is entitled to get pagudi from the defendants.2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the defendants are kasavargam tenants and therefore, they are bound to pay the pagudi to the plaintiff. In the first place the tenure known as kasavargam tenure has not been the subject of any decision. The incidents of such a tenure are not known though Sadasiva Iyer, J., in Naina Pillai Marakayar v. Bamanathan Chettiar : (1917)33MLJ84 thinks that kasavargam tenants are tenants newly introduced into a village by the land-holder for cultivation purposes on condition that they would give up their dwelling site...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »