Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
C. Venkatachariar Vs. Bontham Pachayappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad250
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for partition and delivery with mesne profits of one-third of the permanent leasehold village of Paoharahalli. The suit was decreed by the District Munsif. On appeal to the learned District Judge of Salem it, was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to one-third of the village but only to one-third of the income. On the hearing of the second appeal, Mr. K.V. Krishnaswamy Aiyar appeared for the plaintiff-appellant, and Mr. Somayya for the Respondents 1 to 4 intimated that his clients had no interest and took no part in the argument. I have accordingly heard the appeal as an ex-parte matter. The plaint agreement of the 4th September 1845 has apparently disappeared1 and we are thrown back for its terms on to a recital in the judgment in O.S. No. 569 of 1887 in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruppattur. The District Munsif there says:Its contents are to the effect that in consideration of the advances made in kind and in money to the tenants of the village...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Charyulu and anr. Vs. Sowcar Lodd Govindoss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1196; 90Ind.Cas.496; (1925)49MLJ185
Phillips, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies as the suit is of a small cause nature of a value of less than Rs. 500. It is not disputed that this Second Appeal deals only with a matter of a small cause nature, namely, a claim for jodi and road cess which has been held by this Court to be similar to a claim for rent; but it is contended that in the original Court the plaintiff included with his claim for rent a claim for a cess called Savari Nasar which is of the nature of the cesses mentioned in Clause 13 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887). It does not appear from the plaint that any special claim was made for Savari Nasar but the claim was made for jodi, russums, etc., as mentioned in the adambadika account and this coupled with the evidence of P.W. 1 would show that the claim was for rent including the russums mentioned. It has been held in S.A. No. 593 of 1899 which was approved in Harischandra Deo v. Narayana (1901) 2...
Tag this Judgment!C. Vencatachariar Vs. Bontham Pachayappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.516
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for partition and delivery with mesne profits of one-third of the permanent lease-hold village of Pacharahalli. The suit was decreed by the District Munsif. On appeal to the learned District Judge of Salem it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to one-third of the village but only to one-third of the income. On the hearing of the second appeal Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Iyer appeared for the plaintiff-appellant, and Mr. Somayya for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 intimated that his clients had no interest and took no part in the argument. I have accordingly heard the appeal as an ex parte decree matter. The plaint agreement of the 4th September 1845 has apparently disappeared and we are thrown back for its terms on a recital in the judgment in O.S. No. 569 of 1887 in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruppattur. The District Munsif there says:-- 'Its contents are to the effect that in consideration of the advances made in kind and in money to the tenants of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. Tyagaraja Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1245
1. We regret we cannot uphold this order. The application that was made was no doubt in terms for the appointment of a Receiver, but its purpose was not to safeguard any property. The plaintiff who is a widow sued the defendants, her husband's co-parceners, for maintenance and obtained a decree in her favour. The defendants have filed an appeal to this Court and complain that the rate of maintenance awarded is too high. They are themselves, as may be expected, in possession of the property. They applied to this Court for the appointment of a Receiver and obtained an order in their favour. They do not conceal their object in making the application, and indeed it is apparent from every paragraph of the affidavit in support of it.2. They complain that they for some reason or other were unable to adduce the best evidence possible in the lower Court and in order to make up the deficiency they wanted a Receiver to be appointed so that the management by the Receiver may furnish the appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Thambiran and ors. Vs. Namasivaya Pandara Sanadhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.109
1. The plaintiffs in this case have brought their suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C., for the removal of the defendant from the office of Pandara Sannadhi and for the framing of a scheme in relation to the mutt. The Advocate-General has also joined the suit as a supplemental plaintiff. After the institution of the suit and, before it was tried, the defendant died and the Subordinate Judge has held that owing to the defendant's death the suit has abated and cannot be revived, on the ground that it is a personal action against the defendant and that the second relief in the suit, namely, that of the framing of the scheme, is an ancillary relief dependent on the removal of the defendant from his office of trustee. Against this decision the plaintiffs have appealed, and it is contended in the appeal that as two reliefs are claimed, namely, the removal of the defendant and the framing of the scheme which are distinct and separate reliefs, the suit may well be prosecuted with reference to t...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Pachiappa Chetti and ors. Vs. C. Venkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ106
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit to establish the plaintiffs' right to the suit property and to recover the same from defendants 1 to 5, if necessary after division, and for mesne profits. The Temporary Subordinate Judge of Salem decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they were entitled to a two-third share in the leasehold right in the plaint village with mesne profits. On appeal to the District Judge of Salem he found that the suit was not maintainable in law and dismissed it. The property originally belonged to the 6th defendant and his sons. It was mortgaged under two mortgage deeds, Exs. A and B, to the plaintiffs' father. We are only concerned with the first of these mortgages, dated nth July, 1898. The plaintiffs sued on the mortgages, got a decree on 28th August, 1907, executed it and purchased the property in Court sale on 28th January, 1909. They tried to take possession on 21st May, 1910 (Ex. C-4), and the 1st defendant and others obstructed. These latter had ...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Pachaiappa Chetti and ors. Vs. C. Venkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1198; 90Ind.Cas.952
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit to establish the plaintiffs' right to the suit property and to receiver the same from defendants 1 to 5, if necessary after division and for mesne profits. The Temporary Subordinate Judge of Salem decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they were entitled to a two-thirds share in the leasehold right in the plaint village with mesne profits. On appeal to the District Judge of Salem ha found that the suit was not maintainable in law and dismissed it. The property originally belonged to the 6th defendant and his sons. It was mortgaged under two mortgage deeds, Exhibits A and B, to the plaintiffs' father. We are only concerned with the first of these mortgages dated 11-7-1898. The plaintiffs sued on the mortgages, got a decree on 28-8-07, executed it and purchased the property in Court sale on 28-1-09. They tried to take possession on 21-5-1910 (Exhibit C4), and the 1st defendant and others obstructed. These latter had bought the property on 9...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami Nayakkar and ors. Vs. Venkata Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1219
Spencer, J.1. The facts of this case appear from my learned brother's judgment, which I have had the benefit of perusing, and from the judgment of the Court below. The important points to be noted are: first, that the 1st defendant, who was an adult in 1912, when the suit mortgage (Ex. A) was executed by his father, Akkala Naicker, did not join in executing if, and that therefore he and his minor sons, Defendants 2 and 3, who are the three appellants before us, are not directly bound by it; secondly, that between the date of the earlier mortgage of 1898, executed by Akkala Naicker, on behalf of himself and his then minor son, 1st defendant, and the date of the suit mortgage, there was a partition in 1907 between Akkala Naicker and 1st defendant, in which the mortgage of 1898 was allotted to the share of the father, Akkala Naicker, and therefore Akkala Naicker had no power to encumber the separate estate of 1st defendant, even if he intended to do so, and that he had an intention to do ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Naicker and ors. Vs. Venkata Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.577
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The facts of this case appear from my learned brother's judgment which I have had the benefit of perusing, and from the judgment of the Court below. The important points to be noted are first that the 1st defendant, who was an adult in 1912 when the suit mortgage (Ex. A) was executed by his father Akkal Naicker, did not join in executing it and that, therefore, he and his minor sons, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are the three appellants before us, are not directly bound by it; secondly, that between the date of the earlier mortgage of 1898 executed by Akkal Naicker on behalf of himself and his then minor son 1st defendant and the date of the suit mortgage, there was a partition in 1907 between Akkal Naicker and 1st defendant, in which the mortgage of 1898 was allotted to the share of the father Akkal Naicker, and, therefore, Akkal Naicker had no power to encumber the separate estate of 1st defendant even if he intended to do so, and that he had an intention...
Tag this Judgment!R. Palavesam Chettiar Vs. Narayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1086; (1925)49MLJ115
Devadoss, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram declining to set aside an award passed by the arbitrators in S.C.S. No. 1738 of 1921. The first contention urged by Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar against the judgment of the Lower Court is that the arbitrators imported into the consideration of the case matters within their own personal knowledge. In giving grounds for their decision the arbitrators say: ' And we also know that whenever he came here he may have purchased oil from this plaintiff or other oil-mongers only upon the payment of ready cash and that otherwise there was no necessity for him to have such large dealings. ' The District Munsif dealing with this objection says: ' No doubt the arbitrators have imported personal knowledge. They are entitled to do so and parties who consented to the arbitration would clearly have known that the arbitrators must have some local knowledge and would import such knowledge in deciding the case. 'Whether the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »