Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Nawab Sulaiman Alikhan and ors. Vs. Menna Venkatanarayana Garu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.166
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. He is now dead and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Plaintiff's suit was one for contribution against the persons who were along with others, judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 358 of 1904 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Masulipatam. A joint decree was passed against the two defendants by the Court of first instance. On appeal the Subordinate Judge departed from the usual rule of passing several decrees against the two defendants because he was under the impression that there was only one judgment-debtor in the said O.S. No. 358 of 1904 and the others were all his legal representatives The report submitted by the Subordinate Judge shows that on this assumption he was wrong. It follows, therefore, that the joint decree against the two defendants should not have been passed by the lower Court. So far as the first defendant is concerned the lower Court's decree is modified and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Kidangu Kettiya Ramdupurayil Kunhahomed Vs. Payoth Ramdupurayil Sara U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1158; 90Ind.Cas.849; (1925)49MLJ121
Phillips, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim maintenance from the karnavan of their tarwad. Both the Lower Courts found in their favour and have given a decree for maintenance. The 4th defendant, who claims to be the present karnavan of the tarwad, has filed this appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the plaintiffs are not entitled to bring this suit without impleading the other members of the tarwad, or at any rate the other members of their tavazhi, because in 1886 the then karnavan, Kunhi Thooppan, entered into karars with his six sisters, under which certain properties were allotted to them and their families for maintenance. The karar which refers to the tavazhi of plaintiffs' ancestress is filed as Ex. I. It is executed by the karnavan's sister, Kunjathumma and her nine children and also the children of these children. There are in all thirty-three executants who apparently comprise all the adult members of that tarwad. The minor children are not in terms parties to ...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Subramania Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Piramu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1111; (1925)49MLJ128
1. The Bench which heard C.M.A. No. 322 of 1919 decided that the surrender by Subbammal in favour of the appellant, if bona fide, would have the effect of divesting the respondent of her right to the property. Having taken this view of the law (we are not at present concerned with deciding whether this view is correct or not), the learned Judges remanded the case for the further question being determined whether the surrender was bona fide or not. The District Judge who has heard the case has recorded a finding that the surrender was not bona fide. The finding is attacked before us in this appeal.2. The effect of the learned Judge's judgment is this. Subbammal executed a surrender in favour of the appellant who was her son. As a part of the arrangement the appellant undertook to pay and did pay his sister, that is, Subbammal's daughter Arurnugatammal, a sum of Rs. 4,000. The District Judge, mainly from this fact, concludes that the surrender was not in good faith. To use his own words,...
Tag this Judgment!Chakiri Subbayya and ors. Vs. Lade Sreenivasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ126
Spencer, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of jurisdiction. The connected suits were brought by the Shrotriemdar to recover rent for Faslis 1327, 1328 and 1329 and were filed in the District Munsif's Court of Madanapalle. The defendants, who are the petitioners in the High Court, contend that these suits, being suits brought by a landholder of an estate to recover arrears of rent, are exclusively cognizable by a Revenue Court.2. Under Act VIII of 1865, Section 1, Shrotriemdars fell under the category of ' landholders ' and could proceed against their tenants before the Collector for recovery of rent, provided that they had taken written leases or muchilikas from them, but they might themselves be the tenants of a superior landlord [vide Rama v. Venkatachalam ILR (1885) M 576 and Suryanarayana v. Appa Rao ILR (1892) M 40 Under Section 87 suits for arrears of rent could also be instituted in Civil Courts.3. Under Act 1 of 1908 not all Shrotriemdars and Inamdars are lan...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisa Bivi Ammal Vs. Jokara Bivi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ375
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against an order of the District Judge of East Tanjore at Negapatam affirming an order of the District Munsif dismissing a petition for rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant is the second defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff-decree-holder in O.S. No. 32 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Tiruvalur. In that suit a decree for partition was passed to the effect that the first defendant in the suit was to pay the plaintiff a certain sum of money and he was also direct-ed to pay the present appellant another sum of money. The relevant portion of the decree is as follows:This Court doth order and decree that the Ist defendant do pay to the plaintiff (for her share) the sum of Rs. 2,999-8-0 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from this date to the date of realization of the said sum and do also pay to the plaintiff the ...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday Gangadara Sah Vs. A. Swaminadha Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad218
Shrinivasa Aiyanger, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this suit is quite simple and though not frequently arising is of considerable importance. The plaintiff's suit is for the taking of the accounts of a partnership between himself and the three defendants. That a partnership agreement was made between these parties it is not disputed. The terms of the partnership have been reduced to writing and are to be found in the admitted copy filed as Ex. A. Defendants 2 and 3 have not contested the claim of the plaintiff' and are apparently themselves anxious that the accounts of the partnership should be taken and the profits or losses ascertained and distributed2. The contest in the ease which raises the only point for determination has been put up only by the 1st defendant and has reference merely to the validity of the contract sought to be enforced. The point as put by the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant is this : the partnership contract was made in the Mysore S...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Naick Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad672
ORDER1. This is an application to quash the proceedings, now pending before the Sub-Magistrate of Sattur, on the ground that no complaint was field in the case to enable the Magistrate to take proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner made a statement to the Village Munsif of Mala Raja Kularaman, that a dacoity was committed in his house and mentioned certain persons as having taken part in the dacoity. The Village Munsif forwarded the complaint to the Police, who held an investigation and referred the case as false. The Sub-Magistrate of Srivilliputtur, to whom the papers were sent, accepted the referred charge-sheet and struck the case of his file. The police put in a charge sheet before the Sub-Divional Magistrate of Sivakasi, against the petitioner for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. The Sub-Divisional magistrate transferred the case to the Second Class Magistrate of Sattur. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no complaint from the Second Class Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalam S. Vaiyapuri Chetty and ors. Vs. P.K. Ramachandra thevar by Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1143
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad, setting aside the order of the District Munsif of Sattur. The petitioner's contention is that the District Judge's order is wrong and is opposed to the provisions of the Court Fees Act, Section 7, Clause IV(c). The plaintiff sues for an injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up a fence on the ground that the property is his and that the defendants have no right to it. The defendants contend that it is communal property and is not the exclusive property of the plaintiff. The suit is valued at Rs. 250, for purposes of jurisdiction and for purposes of Court-fee the relief of mandatory injunction is valued at Rs. 50. The Court-fee of Rs. 22-7-0 was paid on Rs. 200, half of Rs. 400, being the estimated value of the plaint land. The District Munsiff held that the property was worth more than Rs. 30,000 and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, with the proper Court-fee a...
Tag this Judgment!Chakiri Subayya Vs. Doddi Mal Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.269
Spencer, J.1. These civil revision petitions raise a question of jurisdiction. The connected suits were brought by a shrotriemdar to recover rent for Faslis 1327, 1328 and 1329 and were filed in the District Munsifs Court of Madanapalli. The defendants, who are the petitioners in the High Court contend that these suits, being suits brought by a land-holder of an estate to recover arrears of rent, are exclusively cognizable by a Revenue Court. Under Act VIII of 1865, Section 1, shrotriemdars fell under the category of 'land-holders' and could proceed against their tenants before the Collectors for recovery of rent provided that they had taken written leases or muchalikkas from them, but they might also be the tenants of a superior landlord [vide Rama v. Venkatachalam 8 M. 576 : 9 Ind. Jur. 460 : 3 Ind. Dec. 395 and Suryanarayana v. Appa Rau 16 M. 40 : 2 M.L.J. 249 : 5 Ind. Dec. 736 Under Section 87 suits for arrears of rent could also be instituted in Civil Courts. Under Act I of 1908, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Perumal Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.398
ORDER1. This is an application to quash the proceedings, now pending before the Sub-Magistrate of Satur, on the ground that no complaint was filed in the case to enable the Magistrate to take proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner made a statement to the Village Munsif of Mela Raja Kularaman, that a dacoity was committed in his house and mentioned certain persons as having taken part in the dacoity. The Village Munsif forwarded the complaint to the Police, who held an investigation and reported the case as false. The Sub-Magistrate of Srivilliputtur to whom the papers were sent, accepted the referred charge-sheet and struck the case off his file. The Police put in a charge-sheet before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sivakasi, against the petitioner for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the Second Glass Magistrate of Satur. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no complaint from the Second Gla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »