Chennai Court July 1925 Judgments
Sree Rajah Vadievu Viswasundara Rao Vs. Vannamu Paidigada and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.485
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 Article 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sowrimuthu and ors. Vs. Pavadai Pachi Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.868
1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are not in dispute. One Subbaraya Pillai father of the first defendant died in 1918. He sold the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule I to the plaintiff's father Roger on the 27th February 1905, the properties mentioned in, Schedule II to the 4th defendant on 22nd May 1902 and the properties in Schedule III to the predecessor 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 first 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 Schedule I,...
Tag this Judgment!Valavala Lakshminarasamma Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.577
Odgers, J.1. This is a case under the Land Acquisition Act on appeal from the Acting District Judge of Rajahmundry. The land acquired is 1 acre 77 cents in Survey No. 78, an inam dry land in the village of Tottaramudi in Amalapur Taluk. The claimant has been allowed Rs. 500 an acre plus cost of trees and allowances. Before the learned District Judge, the claimant claimed Rs. 4,500 as compensation and before us the learned Vakil has stated that he is entitled to Rs. 2,500 more than has been awarded. The claim is put on two grounds, first, that, as the surrounding lands have been acquired to extend the Settiga hamlets and that as this land has been acquired for the same purpose, we must value it as a building site. Alternatively it is said, that, as it is a cocoanut tope with a valuable annual yield of cocoanuts, it may be valued on that basis. Rupees 2,000 an acre is claimed as building site and a net sum of Rs. 3,600 as a cocoanut tope estimating the price at 20 years' annual value. It...
Tag this Judgment!Dost Muhammad Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Kadar Batcha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.950
Odgers, J.1. In this case four plaintiffs Muhammadans brought a suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. for the removal of the defendant from the management of mosque Pallivasal in Ellaimankoil 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 reside at Chunnambukara Street, the 2nd plaintiff at Kollupettai Street; 3rd at Attumanthai Street, and the 4th out of Fort, Tanjore.2. The appeal has been argued before us on the point of want of interest of the plaintiffs under the section of the C.P.C. and also with a view to establishing certain charges set out in plaint para. 8(f)(g)(i) and (l) 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. The defendant in his written sta...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Sobha Sundar Dalai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad149; (1925)49MLJ540
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that the revision petition does not lie but following Parama-swami Aiyangar v. Alamelu Natchiar Ammal ILR (1918) M 76 and Ramaswami Goundan v. Kali Goundan ILR (1918) M 310. I hold it lies. The learned vakil for the respondents says that there is not even a suit which might go to the District Court and therefore the reason of Ayling, J. in Paramaswami Aiyangar v. Alamelu Natchiar Ammal ILR (1918) M 76. does not apply. But we have got an application under Section 111 of the Act. A suit to question it might have been filed by the defaulter under Section 112. I think this is enough to make the Revenue Divisional Officer a Court subordinate to the High Court. How far I should interfere is a difficult matter. Coming to the merits, I remember (1) that this Civil Revision Petition has been filed in April, 1925, against an order of October, 1922 ; (2) that the Board of Revenue has declined to interfere and, if possible, I should not create a...
Tag this Judgment!Puthia Madathil Subramaniam Pattar of Engadiyur Amsom and Desam (dead) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ717
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendants who are Uralars of a devaswom. In the promissory note it is recited that the two defendants promise 'in our capacity as Uralars of the devaswom to pay' and again we have the recital ' the amount that has been taken in cash is due to you from the devaswom. ' Notwithstanding this specific recital of the liability of the devaswom for the suit debt the Lower Appellate Court has held, relying on Saminatha Aiyar v. Srinivasa Aiyar (1916) 32 MLJ 259, that the plaintiff is entitled only to a personal decree against the Uralars. Since the District Judge delivered his judgment another case of this Court has been reported, namely, Sundaftesan Chettiar v. Viswanatha Pandara Sannadhi ILR (1922) M 703, in which the facts are identical with the present case, namely, there was a distinct understanding in the promise made by the Uralars that the money was to be repaid out of devaswom funds, that is to say, not only did they p...
Tag this Judgment!Trustee of the Vizianagaram Estate Vs. Paila Achanah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad140
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit for rent in respect of certain lands called Badava lands situated in a riverbed. The District Judge has found that these lands were neither Kambattam nor old waste nor ryoti nor of any of the other descriptions mentioned in Section 3(16)(a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act. He has in conseguence held that the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to try a suit for rent in respect of these lands. He has, however, cmitted to notice that the definition of 'rent' in Section 3(11), runs as follows:Rent,' means whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both to a landholder for the use or occupation of laud in his estate for the purpose of agriculture2. That is to say it includes whatever is payable not merely on ryoti land or old waste or Kambattam 'but on any land whatever. Under Section 19, a revenue Court is debarred from trying a suit for rent on Kambattam land, but all other suits by a landholder for recovery of rent seem to be covered by Art...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venugopal Nayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1044
ORDER1. Petitioner who is a First Grade Pleader has been charged under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottah. He was engaged to represent the accused in a security case and all the charges against him, except one, alleged various acts of misconduct in relation to that case. These charges were made to the District Magistrate, Tanjore, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who suggested that proceedings should be taken against petitioner under the Legal Practioners Act. In the result the Additional District Magistrate forwarded the police report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate: Pattukottah for enquiry and the latter issued notice to petitioner under Section 14 of the Act. It is not quite clear what was in the mind of the Additional District Magistrate whether he intended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should himself dispose of the charges or whether his idea was that a sort of preliminary enquiry should be held and a report should ...
Tag this Judgment!Puthia Madathil Subramaniam Patter of Eangadiyur Amsom and Desam (Died ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.481
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendants, who are uralars of a devaswom. In the promissory-note, it is recited that the two defendants promise 'in our capacity as (sic) of the devoswom to pay' and again we have the recital 'the amount that has been taken in cash is due to you from the devaswom.' Notwithstanding this specific recital of the liability of the devaswom for the suit debt, the lower Appellate Court has held relying on Swaminatha Aiyar v. Srinivasa Aiyar 38 Ind. Cas. 172 : 32 M.L.J. 259 : 21 M.L.T. 91 : 5 L.W. 323 , that the plaintiff is entitled only to a personal decree against the uralars. Since the District Judge delivered his judgment, another case of this Court has been reported, namely, Sundaresam Chettiar v. Viswanatha Pandarasannadhi (1922) M.W.N. 444 : A.I.R. (1922) (M.) 402 in which the facts are identical with the present case, namely, there was a distinct undertaking in the promise made by the uralars that the money was to be ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venugopal Naydu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.896
ORDER1. Petitioner who is a First Grade Pleader has been charged under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottah. He was engaged to represent the accused in a security case and all the charges against him except one alleged various acts of misconduct in relation, to that case. These charges were made to the District Magistrate, Tanjore, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who suggested that proceedings should be taken against petitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act. In the result the Additional District Magistrate forwarded the Police report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottah for enquiry and the latter issued notice to petitioner under Section 14 of the Act. It is not quite clear what was in the mind of the Additional District Magistrate Whether he intended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should himself dispose of the charges or whether his idea was that a sort of preliminary enquiry should be held and a re-, port sho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »