Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
Sri Paramahamsa Sriranga Narayana Jeer Swamigal Vs. Sri Paramahamsa Ah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad166
Wallace, J.1. This Revision Petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly cancelling a temporary injunction granted by the District Munsif, Srirangem in O.S. No. 430 of 1924, on his file. The plaint in that suit was filed by the head of the Tengalai Mutt at Srirangam and the principal defendant is the Jeer of the Ahobila Mutt; the other defendants are the trustees of the Srirangam Temple. The general relief claimed in the plaint is that the Jeer of Ahobila Mutt should be restrained from bringing into the Srirangam Temple certain paraphernalia and emblems pertaining to his office some of which bear the Vadagalai Namam, when he proposes to enter the temple for the purpose of worship. The trustees are made parties because they have by a resolution permitted him to enter accompanied by these emblems. The plaintiff's contentions as I read the plaint are mainly two. First, that such entry involving the introduction of Vadagalai Namams is opposed to usage and traditio...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Manikkammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad447
Kumarswami Sastri, J.1. I think the decree of the Mnnsif is correct. The promissory note after reciting that the executant was the guardian of the minor and that Rs. 125 was due by the father of the minor proceeds as follows : 'I shall pay these Rs. 115 to you or order, on demand, with interest at 1 per cent per mensem. I execute the promissory-note in these terms with my consent.' It is signed by the defendant without any qualification or description. It is difficult to see how I can in the face of the express personal promise to pay and the unqualified way in which the note is signed hold that the defendant is not liable on the note. It is open to the guardian to undertake to pay personally a debt due by the estate and there is no want of consideration if (creditor agrees to accept the guardian's personal responsibility instead of having recourse against the estate.2. Reference has been made to Padma Krishna Chettiar v. Nagamani Ammal [1915] 39 Mad. 915, but as pointed out by Wallis,...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswari Muthuramailinga Sethupathi Avergal Raja of Ramnad Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.311
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 Raja 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 Raja 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 XXIII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C on the 26th of April 1924 where it was stated that the parties had come to an agreement and that a d...
Tag this Judgment!Guntur Narasimham and anr. Vs. Nyapati Narayana Rao Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.405
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 15th of February 1918.2. The first question that arises is what is the Article that is applicable? Article 120 seems to be the appropriate Article. The decisions seem to be to the same effect: see Authikesavaloo Naicker v. Shalt Abdulla (1915) M.W.N 337 and Venkateswara Aiyar v. Somasundram Chettiar 44 Ind. Cas. 551 : 7 L.W. 280 : (1918) M.W.N. 244. 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...
Tag this Judgment!Gadapalli Seetharama Swami Vs. the Secy. of State for India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad682
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for injunction and for damages. The plaintiff is the owner of jiroyti land S. No. 784 in Peddapuram. This land was situated south of tank called Venkatapathiraju tank. The plaintiff complained that the defendants extended the tank towards the east, shifted the bye wash of the tank from north-west to the north-east and in the year 1916 bunded the bye-wash, so as to enlarge the water spread of the tank and cause submersion to plaintiff's land namely, S. No. 784. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,000 as damage.2. The 1st defendant is the Secretary of State for India and defendants 2 to 6 are the ryotwari tenants under Government, whose lands are irrigated by the tank and whose lands would be benefited by an increase of the water-spread of the tank. The District Munsif found that the tank proper should be confined to S. No. 775 and did not extend to S. No. 760, as contended by the defendants 2 to 6, that it was not possible to sa...
Tag this Judgment!Bepanna Sitayya Vs. Parachuri Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1288
Odgers, J.1. In this appeal there is, only one question argued and that relates to Item 3 of the properties in the suit. Item 3 has been found by both the Courts to have been alienated by Venkamma, mother and guardian of Sriramulu, the minor proprietor, in favour of the 3rd defendant not for any necessity or for purposes binding on the minor. This question is not argued before me. But what is argued is the award of Rs. 600 to the 3rd defendant, which is made a condition of the plaintiff's (who is a reversioner to the estate of the minor Sriramulu) recovery of Item 3. Now this item of property was alienated to the 3rd defendant by the widow on the 16th of May 1912 by Ex. VIII. On the same day the vendee, 3rd defendant, executed to Venkamma the exchange of 91 cents of property as against 96 cents contained in Ex. VIII and he also paid her Rs. 180 to equalise matters. This land received in exchange, under Ex. VIII(a) was subsequently alienated by Venkamma in 1913 under Ex. III, and subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Gadepalli Seetharamaswami Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.489
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for injunction and for damages. The plaintiff is the owner of jiroyti land No. 784 in Peddapuram. This land was situated south of a tank called Venkatapathiraju tank. The plaintiffs complained that the defendants extended the tank towards, the east, shifted the bye-wash of the tank form northwest to the north-east and in the year 1916 bunded the bye-wash so as to enlarge the water-spread of the tank and cause submersion to plaintiff's land, namely, 8. No. 784. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,000 as damages.2. The first defendant is the Secretary of State for India and defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are the ryotwari tenants under Government, whose lands are irrigated by the tank and whose lands would be benefited by an increase of the water-spread of the tank. The District Munsif found that the tank proper should be confined to S.No. 775 and did not extend to S.No. 760 as contended by the defendants Nos. 2 to 6, that it was not poss...
Tag this Judgment!Bapanna Sitayya Vs. Paruchuri Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.758
Odgers, J.1. In this appeal there is only one question argued and that relates to Item No. 3 of the properties in the suit. Item No. 3 has been found by both the Courts to have been alienated by Venkamma, mother and guardian of Sriramulu, the minor proprietor, in favour of the 3rd defendant not for any necessity, or for purposes binding on the minor. This question is not argued before me. But what is argued is the award of Rs. 600 to the, third defendant, which is made a condition of the plaintiffs (who is a reversioner to the estate of the minor Sriramulu) recovery of item No. 3. Now this item of property was alienated to the 3rd defendant by the widow on the 16th, of May 1912 by Ex. VIII. On the same day the vendee, 3rd defendant, executed to Venkamma the exchange of 91 cents of property as against 96 cents, contained in Ex. VIII and he also paid her Rs. 180 to equalise matters. This land, received in exchange under Ex. VIII(a) was subsequently alienated by Venkamma in 1913 under Ex....
Tag this Judgment!Bava C. Vaithilinga Mudaliar Vs. Chidambaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad113; (1925)49MLJ520
1. The first defendant-appellant objects to execution on two grounds : first, that the Mohini allowance which is sought to be attached is an endowment for a special purpose, and therefore it cannot be made available to a creditor who has obtained a decree against the Ulturai kattalai in general terms ; secondly, that the allowance does not constitute either the assets or the income of the Ulturai kattalai.2. The first objection assumes that the Mohini allowance is a part of the assets of the Ulturai kattalai ; but the argument is that the kattalai provides for various objects, and that the Mohini allowance is earmarked for a certain specific purpose. Granting but not deciding that this is so, it has not been shown that the debt in respect of which the decree was passed was not incurred for a purpose which would be a legitimate charge on the Mohini allowance. On the other hand, from the judgment it would appear that the debt was incurred for carrying out the objects of the kattalai and ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Kuppuswami Aiyar Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad281
Phillips, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal is that the regulations passed by the Standing Committee of the Madras Corporation in respect of the rates levied for the supply of water are ultra vires. Under Section 169, Clause (5),for all water supplied under this section, in excess of a maximum determined by regulations of the Standing Committee payment shall be made * *.2. The section relates to private water supply for domestic consumption and the contention for the appellant is that there can only be one maximum for the supply of such water. He takes no objection to the regulation in so far as it provides a varying maximum in accordance with the rental value, but yet he contends that there can be only one maximum. The very fact of the word 'a' having been used before 'maximum' would show that there was not intended to be one and only one maximum: otherwise the words would be 'the maximum.' If the latter were the wording it might possibly be contended that the maximum must be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »