Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
(Kalakantharam) Rukmani Ammal Vs. Ka Ki Ankama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad744
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. One Venkatasubbayya died on 6th April 1904. He became a Sanyasi on 2nd February 1904, and it is alleged in the plaint that he left a Will, dated 2nd February 1904, making certain dispositions of his property. The plaintiff claimed under a mortgage deed, dated 14th April 1910, executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant's deceased husband. The 1st defendant was the sister's son of the testator and he also married the predeceased son's daughter of the te3tator. The 2nd defendant married the brother's daughter of the testator, The 3rd defendant's husband is dead. The main pleas of the defendants in their written statements, to be considered at present, are that Venkatasubbayya became a Sanyasi on 2nd February 1904, that the Will referred to in the plaint was executed after he became a Sanyasi, the exact date not being known, between the 9th and 12th. of March and that it was antedated to 2nd February. Other contentions ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Chettiar by Agent Sivaramanchettiar Vs. Nayanna Naicker a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.126
In A.A.O. No. 234 of 1923.1. The application to the District Munsif in the case was by the insolvent and was presumably under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. The District Munsif dismissed it on the short ground that it was not an application by the Official Receiver. The insolvent went up to the District Judge, who purporting to exercise the power of an Insolvency Court and presumably with a view of ensuring that the Executing Court acted properly under Section 52, set aside the execution sale. Neither before the District Munsif nor before the District Judge was there any prayer by the applicant to hand over the property to the Receiver. It is difficult to see how the case could come under Section 52 at all.2. Further whether the term 'Receiver' used in Section 52, is restricted to a Receiver, appointed after the adjudication, or will apply to an interim Receiver appointed under Section 20, and whether the application under that section is restricted to one by th...
Tag this Judgment!Kalkantharam Rukmani Ammal Vs. Ka Ki Anakma Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.26
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. One Venkatasubbayya died on 6th April, 1904. He became a sanyasi' on 2nd February, 1904, and it is alleged in the plaint that he left a Will, dated 2nd February, 1904 making certain dispositions of his property. The plaintiff claimed under a mortgage-deed dated 14th April, 1910, executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant's deceased husband. The 1st defendant was the sister's son of the testator and he also married the predeceased son's daughter of the testator. The 2nd defendant married the brother's daughter of the testator. The 3rd defendant's husband is dead. The main pleas of the defendants in their written statements to be considered at present are that Venkatasubbayya became a sanyasi on 2nd February, 1901, that the Will referred to in the plaint was executed after he became a sanyasi, the exact date not being known, between the 9th and 12th of March and that it was ante-dated to 2nd February. Other conte...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanujulu Reddy Vs. Rangiah Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad825; 94Ind.Cas.79
1. There can be no doubt that appellant has wilfully disobeyed the orders of the District Court. On 10th October 1922 he was directed to invest the minor's money in approved securities. Instead of doing so, he lent it out on pro-notes and did not inform the Court that he has done so until he was called to account over a year later. The excuse that on 11th October 1922 he was not a proper guardian, as he had not given security, carries no weight. The, Court then pointed out to him his duty, whether as guardian de facto or as guardian de jure and he has not done his duty. Since then, he has at various times been ordered by the District Court to realize and deposit those moneys in that Court. The earliest of these orders was on 29th October 1924. Admittedly he has taken no steps to realize the money on the pro-notes and is now no nearer doing so than he was then. He pleads that owing to tightness in the money market his promisors cannot pay at present. He has taken no steps to compel them...
Tag this Judgment!V. Samanna Iyer Vs. Kadathur Village Rajavaikal Channel Silt Clearance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad577
1. The petitioner was a secretary of the Kadathur Village Committee for the purpose of silt clearance in 1915. The plaintiff has brought the suit on behalf of a committee elected in 1922 for collecting subscriptions for carrying on silt clearance. The contention of the petitioner is that the plaintiff is not entitled to bring the suit against him. The District Munsif tried the suit and dismissed it on the merits. The subordinate Judge held that the suit was not properly framed, that the villagers were entitled as a body to sue for any sum that might remain in the hands of the petitioner and directed an amendment of the plaint and remanded the suit to the Munsif's Court for disposal on the merits. We think the order for amendment was made without jurisdiction. The plaintiff's case was that the committee of 1922 was entitled to demand from the petitioner the amount which remained in his hands in 1915. There is no averment in the plaint that the suit was on behalf of the whole village. Fr...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamed Meera and anr. Vs. P. Duraisami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1147
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming the injunction passed by the District Munsiff of Dindigul in I.A. No. 747 of 1924 arising out of O.S. No. 380 of 1924. The plaintiff in that suit is a voter in Dindigul Municipality, and be has sued in order to restrain the Chairman of the Municipality from holding an election for three councillors alleging that the notification by the Governor in Council under Section 43 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (5 of 1920) was not properly notified under Section 328.2. Assuming this allegation to be true it is impossible to see what harm an election could cause within the mischief of Order 39, Civil P.C. The plaintiff's apprehension that if an improper election is-held his vote will be frittered and wasted away is quite groundless. Quite apart from the question whether the lower Courts are not interfering entirely without jurisdiction, even if they had jurisdiction, they would be gra...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. S. Varnikalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1199; 97Ind.Cas.433
Spencer, J.1. This appeal has been argued at considerable length, but the points of law which have been raised are really quite straightforward and covered by authority. The suit was brought by two creditors to recover money from Sri Subramaniaswami temple at Perambur represented by the trustees who are Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The cause of action is the execution of a simple money bond, Ex. A, for Rs. 5,800 on the 15th November 1911, by a former trustee, Mutha Pillai, who is now dead. Ex, A consolidates certain prior promissory notes, Ex. B series. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that Mutha Pillai had no power to borrow money on behalf of the devasthanam and that these debts had not been proved to be either necessary or beneficial to the devasthanam. The District Judge reversed the decree of the Sub-Court and granted a decree for the sum claimed with interest recoverable from temple properties in the hands of the defendants.2. The first question is whether the bond, E...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Meera Sahib Bahadur, Chairman, Municipal Council and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.172
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming the injunction passed by the District Munsif of Dindigul in I.A. No. 747 of 1924 arising out of O.S. No. 380 of 1924. The plain tiff in that suit is a voter in Dindigul Municipality, and he has sued in order to restrain the Chairman of the Municipality from holding an election for three Councillors alleging that the notification by the Governor-in-Council lender Section 43 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) was not properly notified under Section 328.2. Assuming this allegation to be true it is impossible to see what harm an election could cause within the mischief of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. The plaintiff's apprehension that if an improper election is held his vote will be frittered and wasted away is quit groundless. Quite apart from the question whether the lower Courts are not interfering entirely without jurisdiction, even if they had jurisdiction they would be grave...
Tag this Judgment!Kandala Thiruvenkatacharlu and ors. Vs. Shaik Altoo Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad511; (1926)50MLJ251
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the inamdars of Lupuchendrapet, seek to resume the plaint land which was granted for mudam service and to recover possession of it with mesne profits. The defendants contend that the land has been in the possession of their family for about 150 years and that they are entitled to enjoy it so long as they are able and willing to perform the duties of mudam, that there has been no default and that the land cannot, therefore, be resumed.2. The District Munsif has found that the land is not re-sumable and the Subordinate Judge has confirmed this finding.3. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal. The Lower Appellate Court on a review of the whole evidence has come to the conclusion that the grant cannot be resumed This is what the learned Judge says:I am not satisfied on the evidence that the inam is resumable.4. The appellant asks me to reverse this finding.5. The learned Judge has also found that there has been no default on the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.933; (1926)51MLJ309
1. Two points have been raised in this appeal: (I) that interest at 6 per cent should have been awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and (2) that compensation for Survey No. 791 should have been fixed at Rs. 16-8-0 per cent instead of Rs. 152. As regards the first point we have been referred to the case in Rangaswami Chelty v. The Collector of Coimbatore (1909) 7 M.L.T. 78 in which it was stated that the claimants were entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum and also to a judgment of the Privy Council in Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for India (1924) L.R. 52 IndAp 133 where at the very end of the judgment, their Lordships state:A small matter of the judgment was the omission of the right to interest to which the appellant is entitled at the rate of 6 per cent....3. In neither of these cases is the question whether the Court is bound to award interest under Section 28 discussed and that point is not altogether free from doubt. However, in the present case it a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »