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.
The Raja of Pittapur Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.238
1. This is an appeal tinder 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 four plots of dry zeraiti land in the village of Chollangi of Pittapur zemindari 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 allowed the zemindar the value of the melwaram, which was determined by deducting the proportionate peishcush from the rent and multiplying by 20. The zemindar claimed half of 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. He foun...
thelikicherla Kandala Appalacharyulu Alias Venkata Charyulu Vs. thelik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.524; (1924)47MLJ906
1. The only point argued in this Second Appeal is that the Subordinate Judge erred in relying upon hearsay evidence for the proof of the loss of the original Ex. XIII. Plaintiff claims as reversioner of one Ramanujachary. 3rd defendant is the son of the alleged adopted son of Ramanujachary and the adoption is said to have been made after his death by his widow. The will is said to have been executed by the testator in 1873 and was registered five months after his death in 1874 and the plaintiff contended that the will was a forgery. The defendant produced a registration copy of the will and relied upon a statement of his third witness that Doddayacha'rlu had stated that the will had been lost during a fire some years before. Upon this evidence he relied for the purpose of adducing secondary evidence of the will. The District Munsif held that the evidence adduced for the loss of the document was only hearsay evidence and rejected Ex. XIII on the ground that the loss of the original had ...
T.K. Appalacharyulu Vs. T.K. Venkata Ramanujacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad345
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge erred in relying upon hearsay evidence for the proof of the loss of the original Exhibit XIII. Plaintiff claims as reversioner of one Ramanujachary, 3rd defendant is the son of the alleged adopted son of Ramanujachary and the adoption is said to have been made after his death by his widow. The Will is said to have been executed by the testator in 1873 and was registered five months after his death in 1874 and the plaintiff contended that the Will was a forgery. The defendant produced a registration copy of the Will and relied upon a statement of his third witness that Doddayacharlu had stated that the Will had been lost during a fire some years before. Upon this evidence he relied for the purpose of adducing secondary evidence of the Will. The District Munsiff held that the evidence adduced for the loss of the document was only hearsay evidence and rejected Exhibit XIII on the ground that the loss ...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Krishna Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad344
Devadoss, J.1. The main contention urged in this appeal is that the Subordinate Judge did not correctly consider the evidence in the case. The plaintiff claims the eastern wall of the defendant's house as his. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the wall. He relied upon the custom prevailing in a Brahmin village, according to which the eastern wall of a house belongs to the owner of the site to the east of that house; in other words, the western wall of a house belongs to the owner of the house. In this case, it has been found that the plaintiff's site was vacant all along. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff claims the eastern wall of the defendant's house as his, the custom relied upon by him is admitted to exist by the defence witnesses. Even the defendant admits:In our village each owner is entitled to the western main wall of his house.2. It is also in evidence that if the owner of the western site builds his eastern wall on a portion of the eastern s...
(Yallamanchili) Pitchayya and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad474
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought this suit, for recovering from the 1st defendant, a sum of Rs. 1,053-4-0 said to have been illegally collected from them, by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs are the owners of Zamindari land. They cultivated paddy with the help of water, from the Kistna canal. The 1st defendant levied prohibitive assessment from the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant on the ground that they irrigated their land, with water from the 1st defendant's canal, without permission from the Government servants. The District Munsif decreed the suit in plaintiffs favour; but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, reversed the decree of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant have preferred this second appeal. The first contention urged is that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the period of limitation applicable to the suit was 6 months, from the date on which the cause of action arose and that the period of limita...
Venkatasubbamma Vs. Pulipulla Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad917; 85Ind.Cas.961
Devadoss, J.1. S.A. No. 568 of 1922. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the lower Courts erred in not granting relief to the plaintiff to amend his plaint by substituting the name of Venkatasubba Reddy in the place of Venkatasubbamma.2. The District Munsif refused to allow the amendment and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The District Judge on appeal held that the District Munsif was right in not granting the amendment asked for. Mr. V.C. Seshachariar on behalf of the appellant urges that the amendment was necessitated by a new plea taken by the defendant at a late stage of the case. The suit was filed in 1919. The plaint was filed on 14th July, 1919. The first defendant's written statement was put in on 15th September, 1919. Issues were framed on 16th September, 1919. On behalf of the plaintiff, the Will of her father was filed in Court On looking into it the defendants raised the contention that the suit by the present plaintiff was not sustainable inasmuch as Venkat...
Yalaman Chili and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.267
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for recovering from the 1st defendant a sum of Rs. 1,053-4-0 said to have been illegally collected from them by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs are the owners of zemindari land. They cultivated paddy with the help of water from the Kistna canal. The 1st defendant levied prohibitive assessment from the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant on the ground that they irrigated their land with water from the 1st defendant's canal without permission from the Government servants. The District Munsif decreed the suit in plaintiffs' favour but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal reversed the decree of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant have preferred this second appeal. The first contention urged is that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the period of limitation applicable to the suit was six months from the date on which the cause of action arose and that the period of limitation a...
N. Gangulu Naidu Vs. Namineni Chengama Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad237; 85Ind.Cas.397; (1924)47MLJ871
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of the Officiating Chief Justice. The facts that have led to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff sued the defendants, who are four in number, alleging that he entered into a partnership with them, that he contributed towards capital Rs. 1,745, that the defendants by suppression of the accounts of the firm and otherwise were causing loss to him, and on these grounds he asked for a decree dissolving the partnership and directing the defendants to pay him the amount due inclusive of interest and profits.2. Defendants 1 to 3, while admitting that they entered into the partnership, pleaded that as the plaintiff had made default in the payment of the capital agreed to be contributed, the partnership was dissolved within a few months of its formation, that the accounts were settled, that the amount due to the plaintiff was paid up and that the account-books of the dissolved partnership were taken by the plai...
Tirupathi Goundan Vs. Shamanna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ654
Devadoss, J.1. The only question argued in the Second Appeals is whether the respondents have a right of permanent occupancy in the plaint lands. The question whether the respondents have an occupancy right or not would depend upon the terms of the grant Ex. A and the subsequent history of the villages granted to Muhammad Moosa Sahib in 1829. Ex. A is the sannad given to Moosa Sahib by the East India Company, by which two villages were granted to him in lieu of a money grant which was made on account of the services rendered by him to the East India Company. The amount originally granted was Rs. 1,700, being the income of these villages. Moosa Sahib wanted one village to be granted in lieu of these villages and he was willing to retain one of the seven villages originally granted. The sannad gave him two villages and the grant comprises not only cultivated portions but all the uncultivated portions as well as waste portions and poramboke, etc. This grant was afterwards confirmed at the...
Thirupathi Goundan Vs. Shamanna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad477
Devadoss, J.1. The only question argued in the Second Appeals is whether the respondents have a right of permanent occupancy in the plaint lands. The question whether the respondents have an occupancy right or not would depend upon the terms of the grant Ex. A and the subsequent history of the villages granted to Muhammad Mossa Sahib in 1829. Ex. A is the sannad given to Moosa Sahib by the East India Company, by which two villages were granted to him, in lieu of a money grant, which was made on account of the services rendered by him to the East India Company. The amount originally granted was Rs. 1,700, being the income of these villages. Moosa Sahib wanted one village to be granted in lieu of these villages and he was willing to retain one of the seven villages originally granted. The sannad gave him two villages and the grant comprises not only cultivated portions but all the uncultivated portions as well as waste portions and puramboke etc. This grant was afterwards confirmed at th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »