Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
V.S.R. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. V.S.K. Muthuramier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad339
Devadoss, J.1.This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Madura, who reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff to be filed in a Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff valued his claim at Rs. 3,078 and filed it in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Madura. The defendant contended that the suit was overvalued and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. In support of his contention he produced a letter of demand written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st November 1922 claiming interest at 12 percent, per annum in case the defendant was not willing 'to transfer the 20 shares alleged to have been contracted to be sold to the plaintiff. Relying upon this, the Subordinate Judge held that the claim for interest at 18 per cent. was not a bona fide claim and that the suit was purposely overvalued for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Sub-Court. On appeal the District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Naidu and anr. Vs. Rayalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad689
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the suit was for possession of a land, set apart for charities, at the time when partition was effected between the plaintiffs and the other members of their joint family. The partition deed is evidenced by Exhibit A, which says that 46 cents of land are set apart for Vanabhojanam charities, paying an assessment of Rs. 1-3-0. It says, in another portion of the document, that D schedule properties, which are the properties set apart for Vanabhojanam charities, shall remain with Muthukrishna Naidu for Vanabbojanam Dharmam, to be celebrated in the month of Karthigai. The properties were being managed for the purposes of charity by Muthukrisbna Naidu, who is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs. He mortgaged this and other properties to the defendant for a certain sum of money. The defendant brought a suit on that mortgage and got the property sold in Court auction and purchased it himself, with the leave of the Court. The plaintiffs now sue to recover the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Rayulu Naidy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.375
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the suit was for possession of a land set apart for charities at the time when partition was effected between the plaintiffs and the other members of their joint family. The partition deed is evidenced by Ex. A, which says that 46 cents of land are set apart for vanabhojanam charities paying an assessment of Res. 1-3. It says in another portion of the document, that D. schedule properties, which are the properties set apart for vanabhojanam charities shall remain with Muthukrishna Naidu for vanabhojanam Dharmam to be celebrated in the month of Karthagai. The properties were being managed for the purposes of charity by Muthukrishna Naidu, who is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs. He mortgaged this and other properties to the defendant for a certain sum of money. The defendant brought a suit on that mortgage and got the property sold in Court-auction and purchased it himself with the leave of the Court. The plaintiffs now sue to recover the property for the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad Khan Khiladar and anr. Vs. Bibijan Alias Hanifa Khathu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1149; (1925)49MLJ675
Odgers, J. 1. This was a suit for the partition of the estate left by a Muhammadan named Ali Khan Khiladar who died in 1884. In 1896 defendant No. 3 sued for partition and obtained decree (Exs. I-IV). She did not execute the decree and one of the questions is whether she is competent to file a fresh partition suit. It is alleged that in spite of the previous decree there was an agreement between the co-sharers of the estate of Ali Khan (father of defendant No. 3) to continue to hold the properties as tenants-in-common without division. The District Munsif was satisfied that defendant No. 3 relied on 'some such agreement' at the time the issues were framed in 1916 and found the agreement proved, and that defendant No. 3 was entitled to a share. The District Judge confirmed this finding but a point of want of registration was taken before him and the District Judge found that parties could orally agree to remain as tenants-in-common. This is the first point taken before me in second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Lodd Govindoss Krishnadas Varu Vs. P.M.A.R.M. Muthiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad660; (1925)48MLJ721
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Two main questions, one of law and one of fact, are raised in the issues framed in this suit. The question of fact can be determined only on oral evidence being admitted with regard to certain allegations made by the defendant and the question of law relates to the admissibility of that oral evidence. The question of law raised is therefore really in the nature of a preliminary issue. At one stage I thought whether it would not really be wiser to allow also oral evidence to be adduced and to record a finding thereon for the contingency of a higher tribunal taking a different view, but Mr. Radhakrishniah, the learned vakil for the plaintiff, intimated to me that his client was willing to take the risk and cost of the Court of Appeal remanding the case in the event of my decision on the question of law being in his favour and the same being set aside in appeal.2. The facts so far as they are necessary for the determination of the main question of law may be set f...
Tag this Judgment!Kandan Ashtamoorthi Nambudripad Vs. Rama Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1052
1. The plaintiff is a jenmi of Malabar and brings this suit for the removal of an anicut erected by the 1st Defendant with the permission of Government, the 2nd defendant, in a thodu which the plaintiff states is his own property. He also claims damages and other reliefs.2. The Subordinate Judga, who tried the suit, has found on Issue No. 1 that the plaintiff is the owner of the thodu on which the anicut is crected, but he has dismissed his suit on the ground that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the thodu as his. The appellant, plaintiff, now objects to this finding on the ground that the plea of estoppel is not raised in the pleadings and no issue was framed on the point This is undoubtedly true and it is possible that the plaintiff has been prejudiced by this omission The plea has been tried and there are allegations in the 1st defendant's written statement which are such that the plea of estoppel might have been raised; but, in such cases, it is always advisable, if not esse...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Sreeramamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad125
Phillips, J.1. The only question for decision in this case is whether the plaint forests which were constituted as Government Reserve in 1910, belong to Government or form part of the plaintiff's Chinnakkalrayan Jagir. The learned District Judge has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of these forests; and has given a decree accordingly. This Second Appeal is filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council and it is contended that this finding of the District Judge is not warranted by law and that upon the facts found by him the suit must be dismissed.2. There is no grant produced in this case, nor any other evidence of the manner in which the plaintiff obtained his Jagir. It would appear probable, that the Jagir was originally obtained by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title squatting upon the land many years ago. However that may be, the real question for decision now is, whether the District Judge has found as a fact that thes...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector of Salem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.179
Phillips, J.1. The only question for decision in this case, is, whether the plaint forests which were constituted as Government Reserve in 1910, belong to Government or form part of the plaintiff's Chinnakalrayan jagir. The learned District Judge has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of these forests; and has given a decree accordingly. This second appeal is filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council and it is contended that this finding of the District Judge is not warranted by law and that upon the fact found by him, the suit must be dismissed.2. There is no grant produced in this case, nor any other evidence of the manner in which the plaintiff obtained his jagir. It would appear probable, that the jagir was originally obtained by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title squatting upon the land many years ago. However that may be, the real question for decision now is, whether the District Judge has found as a fact that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›