Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
Municipal Council Vs. Paratath Bavu Devussi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad235
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree declaring plaintiff's right to certain land in Cochin Municipality. The District Judge has found that the land is used as a right of way, that it belongs to the plaintiff and that recently the Municipality interfered with his possession and that consequently he is entitled to the declaration sued for.2. The main objection taken is that no notice of this suit was given to the Municipality under Section 261 of the District Municipalities Act of 1884, but in-as-much as this is a suit for declaration of title to immovable property, it is difficult to see how it can be treated as a suit on account of any act done by the Municipal Council.' No doubt, in the plaint, the cause of action is stated to be the putting and beating of gravel on the plaint site; but if one looks into the facts, it appears that the plaint has not been accurately drafted and that the real cause of action is the notice sent by the defendant informing the plaintiff that h...
Tag this Judgment!(Chintalapati Butchi) Seetayya Garu and anr. Vs. Gollavilli Appadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad526
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the defendants gave permanent occupancy rights in the land in question.2. The facts may be briefly stated, The Rajah of Vizanagaram granted in the year 1810 to Chintalapati Rayappa Razu a portion of the village of Lakkavaram on what was described as 'Harasala Cowle' or permanent lease. The assessment and other dues payable to the zamindar were fixed at Rs. 1,421-6-0 and the grant contains the words that ' the profits are to be enjoyed hereditarily from son to grandson.' It may be useful to give the rendering of the grant itself (Ex. 1). Harasala Cowle granted by Sri Pusapati Narayanagajapathi Raju Maharajulungaru to Chintalapati Rayaparaju on Saturday, the 5th day of the bright-fortnight of Margasira of the Promodutha year. Yearly money rent for the village of Lakkavaram in the Purganah of Veddadi excluding the existing temple, Brahmin, mirasi inams from the year Pramothudha:Rs. 1,400 jamabandi or assessment* *...
Tag this Judgment!Muchumarri Malliah and ors. Vs. Yerravalu Ganganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad830; 94Ind.Cas.226
1. In this case we called for a finding on the issueWhether the plaintiffs have a right by custom to carry on their procession along the public streets on the occasions mentioned in the plaint with daylight torches as claimed by them 2. A finding has been returned by the District Judge against the plaintiffs; he has held that it is not proved that the plaintiffs have made out such a custom as alleged by them. Ordinarily on this finding the appeal would have been allowed and the suit directed to be dismissed, but it is argued by Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar for the plaintiffs who now appears for the first time in the ease that we should go back upon what we held on the last occasion and hold that the plaintiffs have a right as members of the public to use public roads in any manner that they can lawfully use them and that it is not open to any other member of the public to prevent them from so doing unless they infringe some particular right of the other or they infringe any magisterial orders...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Represented by the Chairman Vs. Pratath Bavu Devussi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.18
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree declaring plaintiff's right to certain land in Cochin Municipality. The District Judge has found that the land is used as a right of way, that it belongs to the plaintiff and that recently the Municipality interfered with his possession and that consequently he is entitled to the declaration sued for.2. The main objection taken is that no notice of this suit was given to the Municipality under Section 261 of the District Municipalities (sic) of 1884 but inasmuch as this is a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property, it is difficult to see how it can be treated as a suit 'on account of any act done by the Municipal Council.' No doubt in the plaint, the cause of action is stated to be the putting and beating of gravel on the plaint site but if one looks into the facts it appears that the plaint has not been accurately drafted and the real cause of action is the notice sent by the defendant informing the plaintiff that he had n...
Tag this Judgment!A.V.K. Mayappa Chettiar Vs. N.K.L. Kolandaivelu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad597; 92Ind.Cas.715
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the_ Subordinate Judge who dismissed the suit as against the second defendant holding that he was an improper party. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to enforce specific performance of a contract to purchase certain property for Rs. 70,000. There was a mortgage over the property created by the predecessor-in-title of the first defendant, who was the person who contracted to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, for a principal sum of Rs. 50,000. The first defendant denied that the mortgage was binding on the property on the ground that it was a fraudulent and collusive transaction entered into by the predecessor-in-title through whom he claims for the purpose of defrauding the creditors and that any consideration passed for that mortgage. The plaintiff, who had agreed to purchase the properties got a varthamanam letter, Ex. C., whereby the first defendant agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against all claims...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Sri Chintalapati Butchi Seetayya Garu and anr. Vs. Gollavilli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.814
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the defendants gave permanent occupancy-rights in the land in question.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The Rajah of Vizanagaram granted in the year 1810 to Chintalapati Rayappa Razu a portion of the village of Lakkavaram on what was described as 'Harasala Cowle' or permanent lease. The assessment and other dues payable to the zemindar were fixed at Rs. 1,421-6-0 and the grant contains the words that 'the profits are to be enjoyed hereditarily from son to grand-son.' It may be useful to give the rendering of the grant itself (Ex. 1).'Harasala Cowle granted by Sri Pusapali Narayanagajapathi Raju Maharajulungaru to Chintalapati Rayaparaju on Saturday the 5th day of the bright fortnight of Margasira of the Promodutha year. Yearly money rent for the village of Lakkavaram in the Purganah of Veddadi excluding the existing temple, Brahmin, mirasi inams from the year Pramothudha:Rs. 1,400 jamabandi or assessment.* *...
Tag this Judgment!Venku Shettithi (Dead) and ors. Vs. T. Ramachandrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad81; (1925)49MLJ634
Spencer, J. 1. I agree. I am unable to regard the omission of the words ' in good faith' which appeared in the corresponding articles of the Limitation Acts of 1859 and 1871, as being without any significance, so as to throw the onus on a purchaser of the full interest from a mortgagee to prove that he acted in good faith before he can plead limitation. The same Article 134 governs both properties conveyed in trust and properties mortgaged when they have been transferred afterwards for valuable consideration. In the case of trust property the Privy Council has decided in Subbaiya Pandaram v. Muhammad Mustapha Marcayar ILR (1923) M 751 that a purchaser for valuable consideration with notice of the trust can under Article 134 plead 12 years' adverse possession as a defence to a suit brought by the trustee. I see no reason to suppose that trusts were intended to be put in a worse position than mortgagors as regards recovery of alienated property. The only distinction between the position ...
Tag this Judgment!(Banjoisi) Narasamma Vs. Banjoisi Sarasamman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad353
Phillips, J.1. S.A. No. 1067 of 1922 The plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 are sisters, and plaintiff brings this suit to recover her one-third share in the suit house which has been found to belong originally to plaintiff's father. In 1918 the first defendant, who appears to have been in possession of the suit house, brought a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act against her sister, the 2nd defendant. In executing the decree she obtained obstruction was caused and she came into Court with an application under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, in which the plaintiff and her alleged tenant were counter-petitioners. An enquiry was held and finally an order was passed in E.A. No. 599 of 1918 which runs as follows:The obstructor did not intervene in that suit. Now she has been evidently set up by her defeated sister. Remove obstruction and deliver. 2. The obstructor can only refer to the plaintiff, the second counter-petitioner and by the use of the word ' obstructor ' the...
Tag this Judgment!Venku Shettithi and ors. Vs. T. Ramachandrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.342
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title, namely, Parameswari Hengsu and others mortgaged such of the properties as are comprised in Schedule A and the properties in Schedule A-1 to one Manjinatha Naicker by Ex. I, dated the 12th January 1872 for Rs. 14,000. The mortgagee conveyed the properties in Schedule A by Ex. II, dated the 16th July 1878 to one Venkappa, the ancestor of the defendants and the defendants obtained them for their share at a family partition. The mortgagors assigned the equity of redemption in the mortgaged properties by Ex. B, dated the 12th September 1906 to one Boobashetti from whom it devolved on the plaintiffs under the Aliyasantana Law. We are not now concerned with the properties in Schedule A-l as to which the interest of the mortgagee also has come to the plaintiffs' hands by various transactions. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. In appeal, the claim for the properties in Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Angamuthu Mudaliar Vs. Ratna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1234; (1925)49MLJ411
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order passed under the Partition Act IV of 1893. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, one of the co-parceners of a family consisting of three co-parceners, brought a partition suit for his share. When the decree was passed in that suit we find an order passed by the learned trial Judge by consent of parties that the property in suit, a house, should be sold under the Partition Act unless the Official Referee found it convenient to divide it by metes and bounds. This was a consent order. The Official Referee afterwards found that it was not convenient to divide the house into two halves and give one half share to the plaintiff and the other half to the defendants. It was therefore decided to sell the property under the Partition Act, but in the order made for this purpose, the learned Judge, Coutts Trotter, J., did not make it clear under what section of the Partition Act the sale was to take place. An application was subsequently m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »