Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Buddala Gan Gayya and ors. Vs. Vennavalli Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.503
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be briefly, slated. 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. No. 3 under Ex. A (14th December 1895). P.W. No. 3 sold half of his moiety (i.e., one-fourth) under Ex. C-1 to K. Lingamaraju who then sold it to plaintiff tinder Ex. B.P.W. No. 3 sold the other half of his moeity also to plaintiff under Ex. C. (21st April 1914). Thus whatever inam Ramayya had, passed to plaintiff The suit is for recovery pf 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 Munsifs findings. The Subordinate Judge has given no finding. According to the District Munsif it appears that the Survey number of the inam according to the old Survey was No. 114. In the re-Settlement of the village in 1899 or 1901), Survey No. 114...
Tag this Judgment!Seshammal and ors. Vs. Kuppanaiyyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad475
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the first issue. The District Munsif has found that the plaintiffs have not proved the relationship set up by them. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of the deceased Krishnamachariar and has remanded the suit for trial of the other issues. Although the appeal has taken the form of a civil miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand the Subordinate Judge is a final Judge of fact and the only grounds available to the appellant to attack the judgment are those which would be available to him in second appeal : see Venganayyan v. Ramaswami Ayyan (1896) 19 Mad. 422 and Joseph Armugam Pillai v. Muruga Pillai [1909] 6 M.L.J. 198. The question, therefore, is: Is the judgment of the Subordinate Judge one with which we can interfere in second appeal The argument on behalf of the appellant is mainly that there is no evidence in support of the finding. After careful...
Tag this Judgment!Appaswami Padayachi Vs. V.A. Ethirajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1043
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. Four points were taken in this petition. The first was that the respondent here had no locus stand as he was not on. the roll of voters. What happened was that his name had been on the draft roll of one ward, and when the fair roll was made his name was put twice over in two wards, Ward No. 2 and Ward No. 3, When they looked through the roll, the Chairman struck his name out of Ward No. 2 because it was in Ward No. 3; and then apparently by an oversight or slip of memory, ha struck his name out in Ward No. 3 because it was in Ward No. 2. He put it right by restoring the name to the proper ward, whichever it was, on the ground that under the rules what was done was a clerical error. It is quite unnecessary for us to say whether it is superabundantly clear that this is a clerical error. We are inclined to think it is pretty clear that it was; but all that is necessary for us to say is that it was a matter entirely within the power and jurisdiction of the learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Muhammad Maracayar Vs. Muhammad Ammal Minor by Guardian Muhammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.521
1. A partition, suit was pending before the lower Court. All the parties to it excepting the 3rd defendant entered into a compromise. The plaintiff was a. minor and he was represented by & next friend. The next friend was also a party to the compromise. He, apparently' changed his mind and failed to apply to the Court under Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the C.P.C. for its sanction of the compromise entered into on behalf of the minor plaintiff. One of the defendants thereupon made the application. It is also necessary to mention that the plaintiff's Vakil' did not file in Court a certificate stating that in, his opinion the compromise was beneficial to the minor. The next friend himself opposed the application made by the 1st defendant and stated to the Court that it is not in the interests of the miner that the compromise should be sanctioned. The question that arises is: in these circumstances can the Court on the application of the 1st defendant sanction the compromise? There is very littl...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisa Bovi Ammal Vs. Sokara Booi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.869
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 C.P.C. The appellant is the 2nd 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 1st defendant in the suit was to pay the plaintiff a certain sum of money and he was also directed to pay to the present appellant another sum of money. The relevant portion of the decree is as follows: 'this Court doth order and decree that the 1st 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 sum of Rs. 352-3-2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Albert Karunakaran Stephen Vs. the Administrator-general of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad686; 90Ind.Cas.498; (1925)49MLJ197
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case a man called, Shangu Pillai, who was an Indian Christian, left a will, dated the 7th November, 1903, which has been the subject of dispute as to its true construction. The material words are : 'I hereby give away to my second wife Annie Shangu Pillai all the moveable and immoveable properties I possess. After me she should enjoy the said properties and she should at her death divide and give (the same) to these three persons, namely, my first wife's deceased daughter Manoranjitamani Ammal's children, (1) Samuel Rajaratnam, (2) Albert Karunakaran, and (3) Penelope Padma, according to the wishes of the aforesaid Annie Shangu Pillai.' It has been argued strenuously before us and to a certain extent accepted by the learned Judge that this is not an absolute bequest to the widow but is a mere life-estate coupled with a power of appointment. I personally, whenever I can, avoid holding that the technicalities of English Chancery practice about...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Sawmy Rao Vs. F.H. Wilson, the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ474
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J. 1. This raises a matter of some little interest. The learned Judge came to the conclusion to which he felt himself constrained, to come with obvious and natural reluctance. I confess that I do not see any particular difficulty about this case when the documents are looked at carefully.2. The case gives rise to a question as to the construction of Order 2, Rule 2, an enactment peculiar to Indian Law and an enactment, the supposed benefit of which I have never been able even to guess at or to make the slightest suggestion of what benefit it would be to anybody at all. The effect of it is said to be that the mortgagee in this suit having sued for an instatement of unpaid interest on his mortgage was to be held thereafter debarred from recovering the principal. That would not carry the respondent all the way because what he has done here is not to raise this matter by way of defence to a suit on the mortgage or anything of the kind but to go boldly to the...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Sawmy Rao Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad703
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This raises a matter of some little interest. The learned Judge came to the conclusion to which he felt himself constrained to come with obvious and natural reluctance. I confess that I do not see any particular difficulty about this case when the documents are looked at carefully.2. The case gives rise to a question as to the construction of Order II, Rule 2, an enactment peculiar to Indian Law and an enactment the supposed benefit of which I have never been able even to guess at or to make the slightest suggestion of what benefit it would be to anybody at all. The effect of it is said to be that the mortgagee in this suit having sued for an instalment, of unpaid interest on his mortgage was to be held thereafter debarred from recovering the principal. That would not carry the respondent all the way because what he has done here is not to raise this matter by way of defence to a suit on the mortgage or anything of the kind but to go boldly to the Court of...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.A.P.M.T.K. Thillai Chidambaram Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ124
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. It is with the greatest difficulty that I could extract a question of law of any sort in this case ; but, if there is any, I suppose it is this, as to whether under Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act ' the person who made the return ' in the case of a firm means the identical person who made the original return. Common sense would indicate that the only requisite is that the firm who made the return should, as a firm, have the notice properly delivered to them. That is a matter of general law and it is obviously a question of fact in most cases whether the notice was such as to reach the legal entity known as the firm. Here it was addressed to one of the partners and by the ordinary law and the specific provision of Section 63(2) of this very Act each partner is an agent for all the others in the firm. The question must be answered in this way : the assessee must pay the costs of this reference, Rs. 150 (Rupees One hundred and fifty).Krishnan, J. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Chelasani Rattayya Vs. Anne Brahmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1223; 83Ind.Cas.59; (1925)49MLJ309
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards. (Section 110, Civil Procedure Code). The suit was for setting aside an adoption and an alienation. The alienated properties were set forth in the schedule to the plaint and were valued at Rs. 5,000 in paragraph 4 of the plaint. That there are other properties affected by the adoption and by the suit is admitted and the value of all the properties was described in paragraph 3 of the plaint as Rs. 10,000 thirty years ago. The plaintiffs finally valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 (see paragraph 7 of the plaint). This value must be the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. It cannot be the artificial valuation prescribed under Section 7 of the Court-fees Act which is inapplicable to this case as the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »