Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Made Gouda (Dead) and ors. Vs. Chenne Gouda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1174; 90Ind.Cas.331; (1925)49MLJ150
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the grandson of the 1st defendant. The latter is the appellant and is the uncle of the 2nd defendant who is his sister's son. The 1st defendant and his sons entered into a partition in the year 1908 of their joint properties. In this partition they purported to include the 2nd defendant and to allot to him a proportionate share of the joint properties. The 2nd defendant has subsequently assigned a portion of the property which he alleges he has thus acquired title to the assignee, the respondent. The learned District Munsif found that the 2nd defendant got his share as a gift or that he got it in consideration of the fact that he surrendered part of his property to the 1st defendant by exchange. In either case he held that as the property was over Rs. 100 in value and there was no registered instrument, whether the transaction was a gift or exchange, it offended against the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Additional Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Raja thevar Vs. Papammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1230; 90Ind.Cas.983; (1925)49MLJ348
Spencer, J.1.The plaintiff was the permanent mistress of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar, who was in receipt of Rs. 700 per mensem as a rent charge on, the estate of the Rajah of Ramnad. This sum of Rs. 700 has been erroneously described in various places as an annuity, perhaps for the reason that the liability to pay it accrues annually, but it is not strictly an annuity as it is not for the duration of any one life, but is a charge on the revenues of the estate of the Rajah of Ramnad in perpetuity. The right to the rent charge was established as against the Rajah of Ramnad in a suit brought by Ramamani Ammal, the mother of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar, which went up to the Privy Council. [Vide Rajah of Ramnad v. Sundara Pandiyasqmi Thevar ILR (1918) M 581. The right has been mortgaged to a Chetty who is not a party to the present suit. The plain-tiff claimed in this suit maintenance against the 1st defendant who was the assignee from a reversioner of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar's estate, and, the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalla Kotayya Vs. Koganti Kotappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad141; (1925)49MLJ117
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff held the patta for the suit land and took in with him four lopayakari tenants, but, in 1908, a dispute arose between them as to who was entitled to the occupancy right in the lands, and it was finally decided that they all had occupancy right in the land. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid the whole of the rent and now seeks to recover a portion of the amount from the other co-sharers. In the present case we are only concerned with one of these sharers. The plaintiff relies on the ruling of the Full Bench in Rajah of Vizianagram v. Rajah Setrucherla Somasekhara Raz ILR (1903) M 686. in which it was held that, where one of two or more co-sharers owning an estate subject to the payment of revenue to Government pays the whole revenue in order to save the estate, he is by the operation of law entitled to a charge upon the share of each of his co-sharers for the realisation of the latter's share of revenue and contends that, in consequence of this, his suit which ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Goundan (Dead) and ors. Vs. Suppia Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1162; (1925)49MLJ143
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is, has the subject-matter of the action become res judicata The plaintiffs derive their title from one. Muthu Goundan, and the defendants from Palani Ammal, the widow of the last male holder. Muthu filed as a presumptive reversioner of the estate of one Raya Goundan O.S. No. 83 of 1908 for a declaration that a mortgage executed by Palani in favour of the 2nd defendant in that suit was not binding upon the reversionary heirs. Palani, who was the 1st defendant as also the mortgagee defendant, denied the relationship set up by the plaintiff. The first issue framed in the case. raised the question whether Muthu was related in the manner alleged in the plaint and was the reversioner as claimed. After a witness was examined, Muthu, discovering that the pedigree on which he relied was wrong, applied to be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The Court refused the permission and the plaintiff having...
Tag this Judgment!M. K. Muhammad Batcha Sahib Vs. Arunachellam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ396
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts are complicated and as the Munsif has set them out clearly in his judgment, I do not propose to state them again. The 1st defendant was the owner of the property in dispute. On the 1st of August 1919, she executed a sale-deed in favour of the 2nd defendant (Ex. 11). On the 10th of September, 1919, she executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. C). The contest is now between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The question is shortly, whose sale-deed is to prevail ?2. The conveyance in favour of the 2nd defendant being earlier in date would in the ordinary course take precedence. On behalf of the plaintiff it is urged that the conduct of the 2nd defendant created an estoppel and that he is precluded from relying upon his sale-deed. The 2nd defendant treated the sale in his favour as cancelled, but under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act the subsequent agreement rescinding the sale cannot be proved. The question then is, did the 2nd defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Koppa Anki Vs. Ponnappalli Venkata Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad884; 87Ind.Cas.695; (1925)48MLJ685
1. The chief point in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as a Small Cause suit. The suit was by the plaintiff to recover damages for use and occupation of his land from the defendant. Defendant's son was let into occupation of the land as plaintiff's tenant for five years, under Ex. A. After expiry of Ex. A he continued a tenant holding over. He died and his mother, the defendant, continued to cultivate without any notice to quit or protest from the plaintiff for six faslis. Plaintiff sues for damages for such use and occupation for three faslis, the rest of the claim being time-barred.2. The plaint is clearly on the footing that the claim is for such damages and not for rent on the footing of the kabuliat, Ex. A. Defendant argued that this is a suit which is prohibited by Article 31 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act from being tried by a Small Cause Court. Plaintiff urges that this objection was not ta...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalla Kottayya Vs. Koganti Kottappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.551
1. The plaintiff held the patta for the suit land and took in with him four lopayakari tenants, but, in 1908 a dispute arose between them as to who was entitled to the occupancy right in the land, and it was finally decided that they all had occupancy right in the land. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid the whole of the rent and now seeks to recover a portion of the amount from the other co-sharers. In the present case, we are only concerned with one of these sharers. The plaintiff relies on the ruling of the Full Bench in Rajah of Vizianagram v. Rajah Setrucherla Somasekhararaz 26 M. 686 : 13 M.L.J. 83 in which it was held that, where one of two or more co-sharers owning an estate subject to the payment of revenue to Government pays the whole revenue in order to save the estate he is by the operation of law entitled to a charge upon the share of each of his co-sharers for the realisation of the latter's share of revenue, and contends that, in consequence of this, his suit which is brou...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Muhammad Batcha Sahib Vs. Arunachallem Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad39; 90Ind.Cas.875
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts are complicated and as the Munsif has set them out clearly in his judgment, I do not propose to state them again. The 1st defendant was the owner of the property in dispute. On the 1st of August 1919, she executed a sale-deed in favour of the 2nd defendant (Ex. II). On the 10th of September 1919, she executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff Ex. 0. The contest is now between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The question is shortly, whose sale-deed is to prevail?2. The conveyance in favour of the 2nd defendant being earlier in date would, in the ordinary course, take precedence. On behalf of the plaintiff it is urged that the conduct of the 2nd defendant created an estoppel and that he is precluded from relying upon his sale-deed. The 2nd defendant treated the sale in his favour as cancelled, but under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the subsequent agreement rescinding the sale cannot be proved. The question then is, did the 2nd defen...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Muhammad Yakub Sahib Vs. Mahaboo Bi Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.756
Odgers, J.1. In this case the parties are Muhammadans. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 his mother. Defendant No. 2 is said to be the foster daughter's husband of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff came of age at the end of 1916. His mother and as he alleges, defendant No. 2 managad his properties during his minority. In O.S. No. 55 of 1911 on the file of the Sub-Court, North-Arcot, the plaintiff brought a suit against defendant No. 1 to recover the value of alienations improperly made by her of his property during his minority and got a decree for Rs. 3,885-14-0. On 19th July, 1908, defendant No. 1 executed to defendant No. 2 an ostensible sale-deed of her own properties (Ex. A) and on the same day a counter-agreement Ex. B. for the re-purchase of these properties was executed between the same parties. On 27th November 1919, two days after the institution of the suit O.S. No. 55 of 1919 above referred to, defendant No. 1 executed another deed (Ex. G) in favour of defendant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kammaboyina Ramadas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1097; 96Ind.Cas.861
ORDER1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 21(d) of the Forest Act V of 1882 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Guntur was rejected on the ground that no appeal lay against the conviction in a summary trial, when the fine did not exceed Rs. 200. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition.2. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Deputy Magistrate has not correctly applied the law to the facts of the case and that the mere finding of the petitioner's flock of goats grazing within the forest reserve would not by itself make the owner of the goats punishable under Section 21(d). Under that section 'any person who pastures cattle or permits cattle to trespass' is punishable with imprisonment for 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 or with both. The statement, of the law in paragraph 4 of the Deputy Magistrate's judgment 'I hold that as the rightful owner of the flock, the accused is responsible for its ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›