Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Rasappa Pillai Vs. Mitta Zemindar Doraiswami Reddiar Alias Pethu Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1041; 90Ind.Cas.545; (1925)49MLJ88
Phillips, J.1. I think it is necessary in this case to set out the facts; for although the District Judge says in his judgment that the facts of this case are not in dispute, he has come to one conclusion of fact which has been questioned here. In 1905, the 3rd defendant sold certain properties to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,800 and in 1909 he sold certain other properties to the 1st defendant for Rs. 16,150. The Bale to plaintiff was said to be free from encumbrances, whereas the sale to the 1st defendant recited various encumbrances on the property, which the 1st defendant was to discharge as a part of the sale price. In particular, he had to pay off a decree debt of Rs. 2,000 obtained by one Rangaswami. Admittedly the 1st defendant did not pay off this amount and subsequently the plaintiff's properties which, together with those sold to the 1st defendant had been attached by Rangaswami before judgment, were sold. In order to prevent the sale being confirmed, the plaintiff paid the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaswami Iyer Vs. Tirumudi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.593
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for a declaration that a certain mortgage dated 14th December 1903 executed by one Venkatarama Iyer deceased in favour of one Satayyappa Chetti, and the decree in O.S. No. 472 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Mayavaram obtained thereon were not binding on the trust properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from executing the said decree against the trust. It is contended that the plaint properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's maternal uncle Panchanadha Iyer and that by his Will dated 8th January 1898 he created a trust. This Will is Ex. A in the case and its construction is the first point raised.2. The first defendant contended inter alia that Venkatarama Iyer got the properties as heir and not as trustee under the Will, i.e., that he took the properties as the beneficial owner burdened with a trust to perform the charity therein mentioned. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff the declaration t...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarajulu Chetti and ors. Vs. Velayudha Udayan, Minor by the Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.743
Odgers, J.1. In the first of these cases, the plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note dated the 15th June 1916 executed by one Balakrishna Chetty, deceased, to Appudayan, the deceased adoptive father of the plaintiff. The District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the discharge alleged to be evidenced by Ex. I was proved.2. The question was raised in this case as also in the connected S.A. No. 1700 of 1923 whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of Appudayan, and by consent the evidence on this point taken in the other case was treated as evidence in this case before the District Munsif. It was contended by Mr. V.C. Seshachariar for the appellant that such a proceeding is wrong in law and the Vakils have no power to bind their clients by such a consent. The matter is, however, concluded by the Full Bench ruling in Jainab Bibi Saheba v. Hyderally Saheb 56 Ind. Cas. 957 : 43 M. 609 that the evidence recorded in a previous judicial proceeding between the same parties ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopala Aiyangar and anr. Vs. M.K. Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ606
1. In this case the candidate who obtained the greatest number of votes at the election was unseated on the ground that he was interested in a Municipal contract and that therefore he was disqualified from sitting. The petitioner claimed the seat but he did not allege that the disqualification under which the successful candidate was ultimately found to labour was known to all or any of the voters who cast their votes for him. The first argument on behalf of the 2nd respondent was that Rule 12 of the rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election means that if the seat was claimed by the petitioner, the Judge must declare him duly elected and that the option of ordering a second election only applies to cases where the petitioner did not claim the seat. That seems to us a quite untenable view and we do not think that the draftsman of these rules--and it is a matter of common knowledge that both the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and the rules drawn under ...
Tag this Judgment!Yendluri Nagabhushanam (Minor), by Father and Next Friend Yendluri Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ671
Odgers, J.This is an appeal from the District Court of Guntur in O.S. No. 60 of 1919 on the file of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur.2. The suit was brought by a minor (the plaintiff) for the recovery of certain jewels specified in the A Schedule and for the recovery of promissory notes eight in number specified in the B Schedule.3. I have, in appeal, nothing to do with the jewels but only with 5 of the eight promissory notes. Three of the promissory notes have been found to belong to the 4th defendant Durgamma and in fact stand in her name. The other 5 do not stand in the name of the 4th defendant and the plaint asserts that the promissory notes were endorsed in favour of the 4th defendant by one Lakshmidevamma who died in 1919 having survived her husband who died in 1903. The plaintiff, a son adopted by Ramakrishnamma and Lakshmidevamma, was their heir after the death of the latter.4. The written statement of the 1st defendant, who is the father and guardian of the 4th ...
Tag this Judgment!Mullapalli Gopalan Nayar Vs. Koppathil Gopalan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad915
1. In this case, a debtor, who was governed by the Provincial insolvency Act, appealed to this Court, against the order of the learned District Judge arid as the learned Judges who heard the appeal differed, the matter comes before us.2. The scheme of the Act is that, when the petition is filed and the debtor is adjudicated, the debtor automatically gets what is equivalent to what I am more familiar with, a protection order on the Original Side; because, by Section 16(2)(6) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, III of 1907.The insolvent if in prison for debt, shall be released: and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted, in respect of any debt, provable under this Act, shall, during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, have any remedy against the property or person of the insolvent, in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding, except with the leave of the Court and on such terms, as the Court may impose.3....
Tag this Judgment!(Buddala) Gangayya and ors. Vs. Vennavalli Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1021
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be briefly stated. One Varanasi Ramayya owned an Inam, measuring 2 acres 30 cents, in the suit village of Ramasingavaram. He sold half of it to P.W. 3, under Ex. A (14th December 1895). P.W. 3 sold half of his moiety (i.e., one-fourth) under Ex. C-1 to K. Lingamaraju, who then sold it to plaintiff, under Ex. B. P.W. 3 sold the other half of his main by also to plaintiff under Ex. C (21st April 1914). Thus whatever inam Ramayya had sold passed to the plaintiff. The suit is for recovery of that Inam.2. There is some doubt and confusion, as to the identity of the inam. As will appear later on, the point is in my opinion, not material. But I may indicate the nature of the doubt, according to the Munsif's findings. The Subordinate Judge has given no finding. According to the District Mursif, it appears that the Survey number of the Inam, according to the old Survey, was No. 114. In the resettlement of the village in 1899 or 1900, S. No. 114 ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Doss Vs. Sankarasubbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1197
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the holder of an inam of 65 cents, in a ryotwari (or ayan village) of Seevaramperi, belonging to Government. The defendant is his tenant and the suit is for rent. An inamdar, by which I mean the owner of an inam, excluded from the scope of the permanent settlement (and either enfranchised by the Inam Commissioner or not but not the so-called 'darimila inam,' can be governed by the Estates Land Act, only if it is a whole village, and even then only if the conditions of Section 3(2)(d) are satisfied, as to which the onus is on the parson who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. In the present case we have not a case of a whole village. The case in Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi (1915) 38 Mad. 33 related to a subsequent inam, i.e., land granted by a zamindar after the settlement, (a grant before the settlement provided it was included in the assets of the zamindari, stands on the same footing). It did not relate to a case of enfranchised or enfr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopala Ayyangar and anr. Vs. M.K. Mahomed Ebrahim Rowther, V.N. Ses ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1119; (1925)ILR38Mad509
1. In this case the candidate who obtained the greatest number of rotes at the election was unseated on the ground that he was interested in a municipal contract and that therefore he was disqualified from sitting. The petitioner claimed the seat but he did not allege that the disqualification under which the successful candidate was ultimately found to labour was known to all or any of the voters who cast their votes for him. The first argument on behalf of the second respondent was that Rule 12 of the rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election means that if the seat was claimed by the petitioner, the Judge must declare him duly elected and that the option of ordering a second election only applies to cases where the petitioner did not claim the seat. That seems to us a quite untenable view and we do not think that the draftsman of these rules--and it is a matter of common knowledge that both the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and the rules drawn und...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopala Iyengar and anr. Vs. M.K. Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.759
1. In this case the candidate who obtained the greatest number of votes at the election was unseated on the ground that he was interested in a Municipal contract and that, therefore, he was disqualified from sitting. The petitioner claimed the seat but he did not allege that the disqualification under which the successful candidate was ultimately found to labour was known to all or any of the voters who cast their votes for him. The first argument on behalf of the 2nd respondent was that Rule 12 of the Rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election means that if the seat were claimed, by the petitioner, the Judge must declare him duly elected and that the option of ordering a second election only applies to cases where the petitioner did not claim the seat. That seems to us a quite untenable view and we do not think that the draftsman of these Rules--and it is a matter of common knowledge that both the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and the rules drawn un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »