Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
B.S. Ammani Ammal Vs. T.S. Ranganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad898; (1926)51MLJ304
1. The plaintiff's suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the right of easement to light and air through four openings. The City Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal Mr. Justice Phillips has reversed the decree of the City Civil Judge and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The plaintiff's case is that her house, No. 135, Govindappa Naick Street, George Town, has three windows on the southern wall and an aperture over the southern wall through which light and air came into her court-yard. The windows are Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the aperture is No. 2 and the windows and aperture have been; in existence for over 20 years and she has acquired an easement for light and air through them and the defendant, the owner of No. 136, is building flush with the southern wall and thereby threatens to interfere with her easement right.3. The defence is that the windows were put up and the aper...
Tag this Judgment!S. Logasigamani Mudaliar and ors. Vs. L. R. K. theogaraya Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad427
1. The petitioners in O. P. No. 63 of 1919 before the District Judge of Chingleput, who are worshippers of the temple of Sri Theagarajaswami, Tiruvattyur, have filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Sections 47 and 96 of the Civil P. C., and alternatively a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code against the order of the learned District Judge refusing to dismiss from his office the respondent, the trustee of the temple. It is conceded by Mr. Ramchandra Iyer on behalf of the petitioners that no appeal lies; but he presses before us the civil revision petition on the ground that irregularities which would vitiate his order have been committed by the learned District Judge in the exercise of his jurisdiction. As there is no appeal, it is clear that we are precluded from dealing with the order on its merits; and unless the learned District Judge has, in disposing of the petition, misdirected himself in a manner which will show that his order cannot be accepted as satisfact...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingayya and ors. Vs. Velluri Narayanappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad593
1. In this case a money decree was passed in O.S. No. 661 of 1899 against one Pullanna and his three sons on the 7th March 1900. After Pullanna's death, the properties of the family were attached in execution of the decree in 1912. The appellants, who are Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, put in a claim petition on 16th January 1918. The District Munsif passed the following order:The petition is presented too late. The claim will be notified. Petition is dismissed.2. The defendant who had obtained mortgage-decrees in O.S. Nos. 719 and 720 of 1911, brought the property to sale and 1st defendant bought it in Court-auction on 26th August 1915 and took delivery of possession on 7th April 1916. The plaintiffs, who purchased the property in auction on 17th January 1913, in execution of the money decree in O.S. No. 661 of 1899, have brought the suit for possession of the property. The District Munsif and the District Judge held that the defendants were concluded by the order on their claim petition and...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Alias Subramania Patter Vs. O. Achuta Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad755
1. The first point raised in this appeal is that the proclamation of sale was not settled by the Court but that the Commissioner appointed by the Court after the preliminary decree prepared the proclamation of sale and sold the property. It is for the Court to settle the proclamation of sale and it could not delegate that power to the Commissioner appointed by it. Order 21, Rule 66, directs that when any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court and that such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale and specify as fairly and accurately as possible the property to be sold and a number of other things. It is also contended that no reserve price was mentioned in the proclamation of sale.2. It is also urged that the appellant was not allowed to bid at the auction. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Aiyar Vs. Babu Srinivasa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.831
1. The only point in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether a person who is claiming an interest in a portion of the subject-matter of the suit is entitled to continue an appeal filed by his vendor. In this case the appellant's vendor filed an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on 10th July 1923 with a memorandum of appeal. He died on 24th September 1923 and on 5th December 1923 the appellant made an application to be made a party appellant for the purpose of prosecuting the second appeal. The application to appeal in forma pauperis was dismissed and the appellant was directed to pay the Court-fee, and a month's time was granted him for the purpose. He has paid the Court-fee. His application for stay of proceedings in C. M. P. No. 2221 of 1923 was dismissed by Mr. Justice Jackson on the ground that the appellant had no right to continue the appeal which was filed by his vendor. The learned Judge distinguished the case of Muthiah Ghettiar v. Lodd Govinda Doss-Krishna Doss ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Aiyangar Vs. T. Raghava Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1046
Wallace, J.1. The point at issue in this petition is whether the lower Court was right in ruling that a 'rokha' which plaintiff wanted to file was inadmissible in evidence because unstamped. The 'rokha,' in my view, is certainly an acknowledgment of a debt of Rs. 250 due to plaintiff by defendant and is signed by him, and was left in plaintiff's possession. It contains no promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver property. The only factor remaining, by which it may be brought within Article 1 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act is whether it was obtained in order to supply evidence of such debt. Plaintiff argues that it was not obtained for that purpose because it is a mere note or extract of defendant's accounts, which plaintiff summoned for but defendant suppressed. Such a point is not one which can be decided on the terms of the document alone. The surrounding circumstances have also to be considered. Now the lower Court rejected the document in lim...
Tag this Judgment!Tadanki Brahmayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Puvvula Madhuram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad496; 94Ind.Cas.489; (1926)50MLJ282
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be stated as follows:2. In the Zemindari of Telaprolu there is a village called Pamulapadu. In the village there is a temple dedicated to Sri Chidanandeswara Swami and it is said that the suit inam was granted to certain dancing girls long before the permanent settlement for the purpose of rendering service in the temple. In the year 1904 the Tahsildar of Nuzwid started an enquiry on the question whether the services were being properly performed by the dancing girls in the temple and whether therefore the Government ought not to resume the inam. The correspondence dealing with this matter consists of Exs. C to G during the years 1904 and 1905. Finally the Government placed the inam under attachment and began to collect assess ment on the inam. Ex. G is the final order of the Collector.3. It appears from it that at that time, the services were not being rendered for the preceding 15 years. The manager of the Telaprolu e...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kalia Perumal Nayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad722; (1926)50MLJ654
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal by the Bench Magistrate, Shevapet of the counter-petitioner against whom a charge had been brought of failure to take out a license for selling grain wholesale. Under Section 249 of the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) read with Schedule V, Clause (0) of the same act any person who sells grain wholesale has to obtain license. If he fails to do so, he is liable to be punished under Section 338. The Bench Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that he was only getting commission for auctioning the grain. The question for decision is whether he is not even as a commission agent a person who sells grain. What he actually did was to sell by auction bandy-loads of grain wholesale. The grain belonged to his customers who sent it to him for sale and he effected the sale by auction and obtained a remuneration by way of commission. He is nevertheless the person who actually sold the grain. It is clear therefo...
Tag this Judgment!S. Adaikkala thevan and anr. Vs. the Imperial Bank, Madura Branch, Thr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad574; 95Ind.Cas.196; (1926)50MLJ401
ORDER1. This is an application to punish the respondents for disobedience of an injunction granted by this Court. How serious and deliberate has been the disobedience, will appear from the facts which we shall briefly state. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 1925 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Dindigul is the Imperial Bank of India and the 2nd plaintiff obtained a lease of the suit lands from the 1st plaintiff on the 30th of June, 1924, to take effect from the 16th of July, 1924. There was a prior lease in favour of the 1st defendant which expired on the 15th of July, 1924, and the 2nd plaintiff was obstructed in the act of taking possession by the defendants some of whom alleged that the Imperial Bank had agreed to execute in their favour a fresh lease. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the suit asking for possession and mesne profits. There were crops on the land valued at Rs. 6,000 odd and on the plaintiffs' application the Subordinate Judge appointed on the 10th of F...
Tag this Judgment!Gutha Viraraghavayya Vs. Vemulapalli Ramakotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad508
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be thus briefly stated. One Vemulapalli Subbiah died about 1909, leaving his widow, Sithamma, the first defendant, and his mother, Bapamma, the 3rd defendant. On 2nd October, 1918 the 1st defendant executed a deed of gift in respect of some of the properties she inherited from her husband in favour of the 2nd defendant, Viraraghavayya who is her brother^ This deed of gift is Ex. I. The transaction was consented to by the plaintiff who was a cousin of the deceased Subbiah by a letter of consent, Ex. II. The present suit is brought by the, plaintiff for a declaration that the deed of gift, Ex. I, is a forgery and does not bind the plaintiff' and that the letter of. consent executed by the plaintiff is also a forgery and does not bind him. Both the Courts below found that the allegations of the plaintiff as to the-circumstances under which Exs. I and II were executed were not made out. But the lower appellate Court also fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »