Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Periakaruppa thevan and ors. Vs. Aiyanars and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.1027
Phillips, J.1. In these appeals the question at issue is whether the plaintiffs, minor inamdars, are entitled to evict the defendants who are cultivating their inam lands.2. The lower Appellate Court has found that the tenants have not proved their occupancy-right, and that they have not subsequently acquired the right of occupancy; and has accordingly decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs.3. In these appeals it is contended that the lower Appellate Court has not considered the decision of the Privy Council in Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhigal v. Veerama Reddi 43 M.L.J. 640 : 37 C.L.J. 199 : 27 C.W.N. 245 : 49. I.A. 286 (P.C.). In that case it was finally laid down that in considering the nature of an inam grant, namely, whether it was a grant of the melvaram only or a grant of both melvaram and kudivaram, no presumption can be made in favour either of the grantee or of the cultivator. For a long period, this Court had held that there was a presumption, especially in t...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppa Muthirian and ors. Vs. Sivabhagyathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad33; 90Ind.Cas.880; (1925)49MLJ358
Phillips, J.1. In S.A. No. 1489 of 1922: The question at issue in this appeal is the construction of the will, of one Vythi Muthirian whereby he left his property ,to his senior wife and her daughter and to his junior wife, the first two being bequeathed a larger portion of the property than the latter. The question now is whether the senior wife and her daughter took the property as joint tenants or as tenants-in-common, the plea that they only took a life-estate not being seriously pressed before me.2. The District Judge has considered the language of the will and the circumstances in which it was executed and has come to the conclusion that the bequest was to the wife and daughter as joint tenants. It is now contended for the appellants that this finding cannot be sustained as it is opposed to the decision of the Privy Council in Jogeswur Narain Deo v. Ram Chandra Dutt ILR (1896) C 670. In that case, in which there was a will of a somewhat similar nature, it was held that the legate...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kambhotlu Vs. Ashreef Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad54; (1925)49MLJ450
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues the 1st defendant for damages for not making proper arrangements for receiving his complaint of theft. The point raised in the second appeal is that the Lower Court erred in not holding that the plaintiff had a cause of action against the 1st defendant. The plaintiff, a High Court Vakil, went to complain of a case of theft and the allegation is that his complaint was not received by the policeman in his station as they were prohibited from receiving any complaint by the 1st defendant who is the respondent in the second appeal. Granting the facts to be correct, the question is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 1st defendant. Mr. Lakshmanna contends that the police officer is bound to take down the report of a case made by a member of the public and, he not having received the complaint preferred by the plaintiff, is liable in damages to the plaintiff. No doubt a police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Murugappa Chettiar (by His Agent, Thayammaswami Pillai) Vs. L.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad135a
Spencer, J.1. The suit as originally framed was based on the liability arising out of a promissory note executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner has been added as 4th defendant as being the transferee of the debtor's liability, and he seeks to have the order making him a party set aside in these proceedings under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.2. The addition of a party under Order I, Rule 10 is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of the Court trying the suit, and an erroneous exercise of discretion in a matter of procedure should not be regarded as something done illegally in the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. Sitaramaya v. Ramappaya (1917) 5 L.W. 207 is an authority of a Single Judge of this Court for the view that even in such cases the High Court can interfere in revision, but I respectfully doubt its correctness, and I think that the law will soon make its clear that that view was wrong, if the recommendations of the Civil Justice Committee are accepted.3...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalai Pillai and ors. Vs. Arunachella Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad540; 92Ind.Cas.520
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal by the trustees of the Pachayappa's Charities to recover rent from the respondents. The appeal was filed by all the nine trustees, but, since the appeal was filed, two of the appellant-trustees have died and one has retired. Of the two trustees who died, one died only on 21st March 1915, and, therefore, there is plenty of time to bring in his legal representative or the person on whom his interest has devolved; but objection is taken by the respondents that No. 6, Mr. Ethiraja Mudaliar, having died in 1923, and No. 5, Sir P.T. Thiagaraja Chettiar, having retired on 29th April 1924, the application to bring in the three trustees who have since been elected on the Board is out of time and that, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed in limine. The contention for the respondents is that the new trustees who have been appointed by election to fill the places of those who have died or retired are their legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi Chetti and ors. Vs. Appavoo Chetty Alias Ardhanari Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1031
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: One Ponnappa Chetty and his brother Periyanna Chetty executed a promissory note. After Periyanna Chetty's death, a decree was obtained against Ponnappa Chetty and Periyanna Chetty's sons, defendants Nos, 1, 4 and 5. In execution of this decree Ponnappa, Chetty was arrested. He borrowed money from another brother, the present plaintiff, to pay off the amount, undertaking to execute a mortgage in his favour; shortly afterwards he executed the plaint mortgage-deed, Ex. A, in which he mortgaged the property of defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 as their guardian. The present suit has been brought upon this mortgage-deed and it is sought to recover the whole amount lent thereunder from the property of the minors, defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5, The consideration was Rs. 1,468 paid towards a decree debt and Rs. 532 paid for cultivation expenses, etc., the lower Courts have found that this amount of Rs. 532 is not binding upon the minors and have give...
Tag this Judgment!Srambikkal Maliakkal Moideen Koya and anr. Vs. Kattuparambath Moideen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1229; 90Ind.Cas.968; (1925)49MLJ354
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The judgment of the Lower Court in this Small Cause case is an extremely unsatisfactory one. The learned District Munsif says that he finds all the issues for the plaintiffs. My attention has been drawn to the terms of Order 20, Rule 4 and the decision of this Court reported in K.M. Koppa Kurup v. Velayichettichiar : AIR1922Mad360 . In that case Spencer and Krishnan, JJ. laid down that it was enough for a Small Cause Judge to follow the provisions of Order 2O, Rule 4, Clause (1), and the learned Judges further proceeded to observe that they are unable to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandaswami Chetti v. Raualinga Chetti (1920) 12 LW 285. I should have been disinclined to interfere in this ease if at any rate the District Munsif had, while setting out the points for determination according to him, at least stated his decision with regard to each separately. But when I find that he has clubbed them all together and made a statement merely to th...
Tag this Judgment!Velayuda Pandaram (Died) and ors. Vs. Sundara Balakumaraswami Maniagar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad829; 95Ind.Cas.968; (1926)51MLJ630
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for the recovery of certain moneys with interest at 12 per cent, per annum being arrears of annuity due for faslis 1318 to 1325. The step-brother of the Zamindar of Vadimitta obtained a decree for a half-share in a suit for partition in the Zilla Court of Tinnevelly in 1846. The Zamindar appealed and pending the appeal a compromise, Ex. B, was effected in 1848, the step-brother under it giving up his claim to a share in the zemindari in consideration of an annuity of Rs. 950 per annum to be made a charge on the rents of 8 villages. The stepbrother died leaving three sons, Kumara Etta, Venkateswara and Dalavoy. In 1863 the two latter instituted a suit for the division of the annuity mak- ing their brother Kumara Etta and the Zamindar defendants. This suit was also compromised and the two plaintiffs became entitled to an annuity of Rs. 280 out of Rs. 950. Dalavoy died and his right passed to Venkateswara by survivorship. On 12th February, 1895 Venkateswara hy...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Forest and Rubber Company Limited Vs. D.H. Macleod and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad270
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of damages in respect of wrongful dismissal. The defendant company justifies its action by alleging that the plaintiff was incompetent and grossly negligent in the discharge of his duties. The trial Court has decided against the plaintiff finding that the dismissal was justified, but on appeal, the decision of the Court of the first Instance was reversed by the District Judge.2. The lower appellate Court in effect finds that the plaintiff was incompetent, in regard to work that pertained to timber but is of the opinion that that circumstance does not entitle the defendant company to dismiss the plaintiff. Is this position correct Before the employment in question, the plaintiff had been working at Aralam. Regarding his duties at that place, he says In Aralam, it was all timber and no tea.' As the conditions at Aralam were not to his liking, he sought employment at Kottanad under the defendant company. I may obse...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Sabapathi Pillai (Minor), by Guardian Venugopa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1217; 90Ind.Cas.767; (1925)49MLJ361
Phillips, J.1. The appellant is the owner of one item of mortgage property and in purchasing that property he discharged a prior mortgage on that one item and also two other items of property, one of which is the subject-matter of the suit mortgage along with the property purchased. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to subrogation in respect of that prior mortgage. Both the Lower Courts have found that he is not so entitled.2. Objection is taken to the finding of the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that the reasons given by the learned District Judge are not relevant in coming to the conclusion as to the intention of the appellant when he discharged the prior mortgage. The District Judge has rightly kept in mind the fact that in such cases the presumption is that the person paying off a mortgage intends to keep it alive if it is for his benefit to do so a principle which is laid down in Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukhdas ILR (1884) C 1035 Starting with that p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »