Chennai Court July 1925 Judgments
Karam Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Adinarayan Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.472
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ananta-pur in A.S. No. 97 of 1921 on appeal from that of the District Munsif of Anantapur in O.S. No 20 of 1920. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the nearest reversioners to inherit the property of the late Ramappa and to recover possession of a quarter of the immoveable property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Both the lower Courts dismissed his suit.2. The first point for consideration is that taken by the learned Judge in his fourth paragraph whether the property shown in the title deed Ex. G-1 is the absolute property of Savitramma or whether she only enjoyed a Hindu widow's estate in that property. The title-deed Ex. G-1 is perfectly clear. 'The inam is now confirmed to you in free-hold,' in other words 'the inam will be your own absolute property.' 'You' and 'your' referring to the six persons in the register, Ex D-2 and the first of these six ...
Tag this Judgment!(Mattapalli) Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. Veppu Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad305
Phillips, J.1. The appellants in this case brought a suit for redemption and a decree was passed in 1917. The appeal against the decree was decided on 22nd February 1918. In that judgment the appellate Court passed the following order: 'In a redemption suit there should be a final and complete adjustment of all the accounts between the parties up to the time of actual redemption and no claim for mesne profits can be kept outstanding or can be enforced by the mortgagor subsequently. Account should, therefore, be taken down to the date to be fixed in the decree for redemption.' A fresh enquiry was, therefore, held by the District Munsif, and on 5th December 1918 he passed a decree finding that the mortgage amount deposited was in excess of the amount due to the mortgagee and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to pass decree for payment of the amount and possession to be given on payment. He accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the suit land and further held that ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sogiamuthu Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad638
Spencer, O.C.J.1. The two accused in this case have been convicted of the murder of the Pandara Sannadhi at Dharmapuram on the night of October 28th, 1923 and have been sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore. My learned brothers, Dovadoss and Wallace, JJ., have differed on the question whether the conviction for murder should be confirmed or not and it is for me to decide now which of their views should prevail. The fact that the deceased was murdered at the time and place stated in the charge has not been questioned before me. The complicity of these accused in the murder is alone in question. They were palanquin bearers employed in the mutt. There is no evidence as to their movements on the night of the murder. The only evidence appearing against them consists of (1) the fact that they produced certain properties alleged to have been stolen from the mutt and from the deceased and (2) the fact that they made certain statements at the time of producing those propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Mattapalli Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. Veppu Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.314
Phillips, J.1. The appellants in this case brought a suit for redemption and a decree was passed in 1917. The appeal against the decree was decided on 22nd February 1918. In that judgment the Appellate Court passed the following order:-- 'In a redemption suit there should be a final and complete adjustment of all the accounts between the parties upto the time of actual redemption and no claim for mesne profits can be kept outstanding or, can be enforced by the mortgagor subsequently--Account should, therefore, be taken down to the date to be fixed in the decree for redemption.' A fresh enquiry was, therefore, held by the District Munsif and on 5th December 1918 he passed a decree finding that the mortgage amount deposited was in excess of the amount due to the mortgagee and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to pass decree for payment of the amount and possession to be given on payment. He accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the suit land and further held that...
Tag this Judgment!The Krishna Jute and Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Represented by Mothey Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ542
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Court of the District, Munsif of Vizianagram in S.C.S. No. 966 of 1922. The petitioner is the Krishna Jute Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. On 31st March, 1922, it was served with a demand notice by the counter-petitioner, the Municipal Council of Vizianagram, for profession tax from 1st October, 1921 to 31st March, 1922 assessed at Rs. 125. The petitioner paid and preferred the appeal Ex. A to the Council pointing out that the company had been decreed exempt from profession tax in O.S. No. 521 of 1919.2. The petitioner, receiving no reply to this appeal, gave the Council notice of suit, Ex. B. dated 28th August, 1922. No reply was received, and on 7th October, 1922 the petitioner filed the suit under revision. On the next day a Memorandum Ex. D was drafted in the Municipal Office, which was signed on 17th October, 1922, by the Chairman. The petitioner was informed that his appeal against the companies tax had been read, and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nanchappa Koundan and ors. Vs. Vetesseri Tarwad Karnavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad47; 97Ind.Cas.453
Phillips, J.1. The question at issue in these appeals is, what is the amount of rent payable by the defendants. They held on a. permanent lease and the question for consideration is, what are the terms of that lease. The District Judge has held that under their contract defendants have undertaken to pay rent for the new land assessed to revenue and he has held that the words 'lands assessed to revenue' do not necessarily mean lands permanently assessed in accordance with the Settlement Register but include lands which have been once assessed to revenue by the Government, and that it is immaterial that assessment is not shown in the Government Settlement Register. It is clear from the terms of the document that the payment of rent to the plaintiff is to commence as soon as the lands are assessed. The lease is an improvement lease under which the lands are to be gradually brought under cultivation and until they are so brought under cultivation nothing would be payable either to the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Abdul Kadir and ors. Vs. Mohammad Esuf Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad909; 92Ind.Cas.396
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Officiating Chief Justice in S.A. No. 940 of the 1921 which was in turn an appeal from the Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore.2. The matter came before us sometime before the vacation when we heard arguments at considerable length. We, however, deferred giving judgment in view of representations that were made to us that there was a strong probability of the parties coming to terms. We were informed just before the beginning of the vacation that these negotiations had broken down and we, therefore, posted the casefor fresh argument after the vacation.3. The litigants are Muhammadans the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 being the children and the 3rd plaintiff the wife of one Sheik Muhammad' Rowther. The defendant is the brother of Sheik Muhammad Rowther uncle of the present male plaintiff. The subject of the litigation is certain property and this has been a fruitful subject of controversy between the parties or...
Tag this Judgment!Sourimuthu and ors. Vs. Pavadai Pachia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad241; (1925)49MLJ679
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this Second Appeal arises are not in dispute. One Subbaraya Pillai, father of 1st. defendant, died in 1918. He sold the properties mentioned in the plaint Sch'i I to the 1st plaintiff's father Roger on the 27th February, 1905, the properties mentioned in Schedule II to 4th defendant on 22nd May, 1902, and the properties in Schedule III to the predecessors-in-title of the present 3rd defendant on 21st May, 1901. The properties mentioned in Schedule IV were not disposed of by him. The present 1st defendant alleging that the sales mentioned above made by his father were not binding on him sued for partition and recovery of his share in O.S. No. 416 of 1916. He obtained a decree. That suit came up to the High Court in second appeal, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was confirmed with some variations which are not now material. After the termination of the said litigation, the present plaintiffs, the sons of the alienee of the properties in Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Vadrevu Viswasundara Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu Vs. Vannam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ72
1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether Article 180 is applicable to an application by the purchaser of immoveable property at a sale in execution of a decree for delivery of possession, or Art 181.2. The appellant purchased property in execution of a decree and the sale was confirmed on 29th June, 1918. The application out of which the present appeal arises was made on 30th July, 1921. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have held that the appellant's application is barred by limitation under Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is contended by Mr. Kameswara Rao before us that an application for execution was made in June, 1920, and the District Munsif ordered that the property sold should be delivered to the purchaser and that this order was not carried out by the Court and therefore should be considered to be in force. He urges that when a Court passes an order for delivery it is the duty of the Court to see that the delivery takes place, and he r...
Tag this Judgment!(Dost) Muhammad Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Kadir Batcha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad466
Odgers, J.1. In this case 4 plaintiffs Muhammadans brought a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the removal of the defendant from the management of mosque Pallivasal in Ellaiammankoil Street, Tanjore, and for consequential reliefs including a scheme for the management of the said mosque. The 1st plaintiff is stated in the plaint to raside at Chunnambukara Street, the 2nd plaintiff at Kollupettai Street, 3rd at Attumanthai Street and the fourth out of Port, Tanjore. 2. The appeal has been argued before us on the point of want of interest of the plain- tiffs under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and also with a view to establishing certain charges set out in plaint paragraph8(f)(g)(i) and (1) in order to prove certain mismanagement in respect of the temple accounts and property. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit on all points and I shall proceed to deal with the first point that of interest as, in my opinion, the appeal can be disposed of on that ground.3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »