Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
V. Ranganatha Aiyar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad42; (1925)49MLJ656
Phillips, J.1. The suit house originally belonged to the 1st defendant's father Narayana Aiyangar and his brother, the 2nd defendant, Alagasinga Aiyangar. A partition was effected between the brothers in 1881, but not by metes and bounds. Narayana's share was sold to one Dikshitar on 1st May, 1905. Alagasinga's share was sold to the plaintiff on 10th March, 1906. On 30th March, 1906, Narayana's share was delivered to Dikshitar by symbolical delivery. On 25th March, 1907, Dikshitar sold his share to Alagasinga's son, the 3rd defendant. On 3rd July, 1917, the plaintiff attached Alagasinga's share in execution of a decree. On 4th March, 1918, Narayana put in a claim petition. On 10th June, 1918, the claim was allowed and on 19th August, 1918, the present suit was brought under Order 21, Rule 63. Mean while, on 3rd April, 1918, Alagasinga had brought a suit to recover possession of his share, a suit which has been dismissed.2. The Lower Courts have found that there has been adverse possess...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Katiri Alias Arunchallem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1069
1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of a young boy and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge of North Arcot. The prosecution case is that the appellant and the deceased were very friendly and they used to take their bed together in the house of the appellant. The parents of the deceased objected to the deceased keeping company with the appellant, but notwithstanding their advice the deceased went and took his bed in the house of the appellant on the night in question. About midnight the appellant was found with a wound in his neck and the body of the deceased was in the house with head almost severed from the body. Information was given to the Village Munsif and he and several other persons went to the house of the appellant and the Village Magistrate took statements from various persons including. the appellant. The appellant stated to the Village Magistrate that ha and the deceased took their bed together that there were some hot words between them,...
Tag this Judgment!V. Renganatha Iyer Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1037
Phillips, J.1. The suit house originally belonged to the 1st defendant's father Narayana Iyengar and his brother the 2nd defendant Alagasinga Iyengar. A partition was effected between the brothers in 1681, but not by metes and bounds. Narayana's share was sold to one Dikshitar on 1st May 1905. Alagasinga's share was sold to the plaintiff on 10th March 1906. On 30th March 1906, Narayana's share was delivered to Dikshitar by symbolical delivery. On 25th March 1907, Dikshitar sold this share to Alagasinga's son the 3rd defendant. On 3rd July 1917, the plaintiff attached Alagasinga's share in execution of a decree. On 4th March 1918, Narayana put in a claim petition. On 10th June 1918 the claim was allowed and on 19th August 1918 the present suit was brought under Order XXI, Rule 63. Meanwhile, on 3rd April 1918, Alagasinga had brought a suit to recover possession of his share, a suit which has been dismissed.2. The lower Courts have found that there has been adverse possession by Narayana...
Tag this Judgment!Pavakkal Vs. Athappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1218; (1925)49MLJ269
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The petitioner in this case obtained an order of maintenance against the counter-petitioner in 1919. In 1920 the counter-petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree on 30th June, 1922. He put in an application for execution on 28th August, 1922. On a statement being filed by the petitioner the execution petition was dismissed. Another execution petition was presented on 24th February, 1923, and it was dismissed as no notice was served on the petitioner. Finally he put in a third petition On 5th April, 1923, and the order on that was as follows :--' The defendant is not willing to live with the plaintiff in the room proposed to be allotted to her. The petitioner does not press the petition. Hence dismissed. 'I think it is clear from the course of the proceedings in execution that the counter-petitioner was not at all anxious to get back his wife to live with him for even on the last application in which the execution of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami Pillai Vs. Veerabhadra Thavalkaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad695
1. This case has had a long history. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the Brabmapureswara Swamy Kovil in the village of Pasupathi Kovil, and they sue the defendants, who were the temple drummer and his brother, for the delivery of a certain house and mesne profits. In consequence of the course that this ease has taken, it becomes important to examine the pleadings with some care. The plaint alleges that in 1880 the trustees permitted the 1st defendant and his two deceased elder brothers to reside in a house which was-built by the former trustees of the temple on a certain site belonging to the temple for occupation by the pipers who did melam service in the temple. In return for this permission the defendant and his brothers undertook to do melam service in the temple living in the house rent free so long as they did that service, under an obligation to deliver up possession of the house in case they failed to perform the melam service or the trustees dispensed, with their services. ...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Pillai Vs. Veerabhadra Thavalkaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.325
1. This case has had a long history. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the Brahmapureeswaraswami Koil in the village of Pasupatikovil, and they sue the defendants, who were the temple drummer and his brother, for the delivery of a certain house and mesne profits. In consequence of the course that this case has taken, it becomes important to examine the pleadings with some care. The plaint-alleges that in 1880 the trustees permitted the 1st defendant and his two deceased elder brothers to reside in a house which was built by the former trustees of the temple on a certain site belonging to the temple for occupation by the pipers who did melam service in the temple. In return for this permission the defendant and his brothers undertook to do melam service in the temple living in the house rent free so long as they did that service, under an obligation to deliver up possession of the house in case they failed to perform the melam service or the trustees dispensed with their services. As t...
Tag this Judgment!Vuppulury Somasundaram Vs. Bhimisetti Kondayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad12; (1925)49MLJ401
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Krishnan, J. I shall briefly state the facts before discussing the question of law that arises. Perumal was the owner of the property and he mortgaged it to the defendant. It was then an unenfranchised inam. In execution of a money decree obtained against Perumal the property was subsequently sold in Court auction. Even then it was an unenfranchised inam. The plaintiff's vendor became the purchaser at the Court sale.2. This suit has been instituted to redeem the mortgage in favour of the defendant. The defence is that the sale conveys to the plaintiff no title, the property having been inalienable. The defendant has had to concede that on this hypothesis the mortgage in his favour is also invalid. He, however, relies upon a sale made to him of the property by Perumal subsequent to the enfranchisement of the property.3. These facts cannot be disputed : first, the property was inalienable on the date of the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!K.K.S. Mamundi Konar Vs. P. ShamsuddIn Sahib Bahadur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1207; 90Ind.Cas.771; (1925)49MLJ381
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is a petition praying that this Court will interfere and set aside a finding of the Election Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in the matter of an election petition before it. At an election for a Councillor for the first ward in the Trichinopoly Municipality held on 26th Sept., 1924, the Chairman, who was the Returning Officer, declared that the present petitioner was elected, having polled 71 votes as against 70 votes for the respondent. The latter filed an election petition in the Subordinate Judge's Court, and on enquiry, the Subordinate Judge decided that the correct number of valid votes was 72 for the respondent and 71 for the petitioner, and declared the respondent duly elected. The petitioner applies for revision of that finding and declaration.2. Only two points are pressed before me: firstly, that the votes, Exs. G and G1, are invalid votes, and were, therefore, wrongly counted in favour of the respondent; and secondly,...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Muthuramalinga Sethupathi Avergal, Rajah of Ramnad V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad341; (1926)50MLJ59
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Ramnad directing the Secretary of State for India in Council to be made a party to the suit which was filed by the Rajah of Ramnad against the Union Board of Ramnad for a declaration that certain streets around his palace belong to him and are not vested in the Union Board Trouble seems to have arisen from the fact that during the survey under the Survey Act these roads were classified as public streets. The suit, however, as appears from the note of the District Munsif, was not a suit under the Survey Act but was a suit by the plaintiff to establish his title to the roads. There was a compromise entered into between the Rajah of Ramnad and the Union Board and this compromise was entered into after a resolution of the Union Board. A joint petition was put in under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code on the 26th of April, 1924, where it was stated that the parties had come to an agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Guntur Narasimham and anr. Vs. Nyapati Narayan Rao Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad66
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is one of' limitation. This suit was filed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff being the Receiver in insolvency represents the body of creditors of the insolvent. The transaction impeached is a mortgage, dated 27th July 1908, executed by the insolvent in favour of the defendant. The suit was filed on the l5th February 1918.2. The first question that arises is : What is the article that is applicable? Article 120 seems to he the appropriate article. The decisions seem to be to the same effect : See Autkikesavaloo Naicker v. Hussain Sahib Kadiri [1915] 2 L.W. 479 and Venkateswara Aiyar v. Somasundaram Chettiar [1918] 7 L.W. 280. It was conceded before us, and in my opinion rightly, that the article applicable is Article 120. The more difficult question, however is : What is the starting point of limitation? On this point, there is no authority. Phillips, J., in Venkateswara Aiyar v. Somasundaram ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »