Chennai Court July 1925 Judgments
Tulasidass Govindjee Vs. Madhavadass Laljee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad148
Shrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am clearly of the opinion that this application is incompetent, The minor for whose person and property, the guardian had been appointed in this matter is now admitted to be dead and the petitioner now before me claims under an assignment from the son of the deceased 2nd respondent and I am told that the 2nd respondent's son bad a right so to assign a share in the property, because it is alleged that on the death of the minor, the son of the 2nd respondent became one of the reversionary heirs to the estate. When the application came on for hearing before me last week, I intimated to the learned vakil for the petitioner Mr. Jayarama Iyer, that I had my doubts whether such an application could be maintained under the Guardians and Wards Act after the death of the minor. I have now been referred to the case of Nataraja Pillai v. Subbaraya Pillai (1918) M.W.N. 440. In that case, Oldfield and Sadasiva Aiyar JJ., held that the words 'for any cause' in Clause 3 of ...
Tag this Judgment!(Pentakota) Somi Naidu and ors. Vs. Pentakota Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad254
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case, one Somi Naidu and the father of the defendants were brothers who effected a partition in 1898. This case relates to the share which fell to Somi Naidu. He died in 1906, leaving a widow. In 1907 the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an arrangement under which they partitioned Somi Naidu's share and agreed that the defendant should pay a certain sum to the widow, who lived till 1914. She appears to have taken no objection to this arrangement. The plaintiff now seeks to recover the property allotted to the defendants under this agreement of 1907, and it is contended for the appellants that he is barred from doing so by reason of this agreement and reliance is placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal [l918] 40 All. 487. In that case one Kanhai Lal who subsequently became the reversioner of a widow Bam Deiclaimed the whole of the property which fell to the widow as reversioner. Before the reversion fell in, there...
Tag this Judgment!(Ayyagari) Venkata, Suryanarayana Vs. Makka Venku Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1155
ORDER1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit was filed to recover certain lands which were originally service inam lands attached to office of karnam and were enfranchised by Government. The Subordinate Judge found that Item No. 1 had been held adversely by the defendants from before 1889. and as to Items Nos. 2 and 3 that the defendants were holding them adversely for at least 20 years before suit. On these findings he held that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff files the second appeal.2. The enfranchisement was effected by Government in 1906, the title-deed, Ex. B, being dated December 2, 1906, and the present suit was filed on June 26, 1918. If the plaintiff gets a fresh cause of action from the date of the enfranchisement by Government, there is no doubt that the plaintiff's suit is not barred. The Privy Council have now held that enfranchisement constitutes a fresh grant. If the plaintiff obtained the title in 1906, free of the prior advers...
Tag this Judgment!Pentakota Somi Naidu and ors. Vs. Pentakota Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.359
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case, one Somi Naidu and the father of the defendants were brothers who effected a partition in 1898. This case relates to the share which fell to Somi Naidu. He died in 1906, leaving a widow. In 1907 the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an arrangement under which they partitioned Sami Naidu's share and agreed that the defendants should pay a certain sum to the widow, who lived till 1914. She appears to have taken no objection to this arrangement. The plaintiff now seeks to recover the property allotted to the defendants under this agreement of 1907, and it is contended for the appellants that he is barred from doing so by reason of this agreement and reliance is placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal. 20 Bom. L.R. 1048 : 45 I.A. 118 (P.C.) In that case one Kanhai Lal who subsequently became the reversioner of a widow; Ram Dei claimed whole property which fell to the widow as reversioner. Before the reversion fe...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyagari Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. Makka Venku Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.253
ORDER1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit was filed to recover certain lands which were originally service inam lands attached to office of karnam and were enfranchised by-Government. The Subordinate Judge found that item No. 1 had been held adversely by the defendants from before 18S9 and as to items Nos. 2 and 3 that the defendants were, holding them adversely for at least 20 years before suit. On these findings he held that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff files the second appeal.2. The enfranchisement was effected by Government in 1906, the title-deed, Ex. B, being dated December 2, 1906, and the present suit was filed on June 26, 1918. If the plaintiff gets a fresh cause of action from the date of the enfranchisement by Government, there is no doubt that the plaintiff's suit is not barred. The Privy Council have now held that enfranchisement constitutes a fresh grant. If the plaintiff obtained the title in 1906, free of the. prior adver...
Tag this Judgment!Tulasidass Govindjee Vs. Madhavadass Lalajee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.570
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am clearly of the opinion that this application is incompetent The minor for whose person and property the guardian had been appointed in this matter is now admitted to be dead and the petitioner now before me claims under an assignment from the son of the deceased second respondent and I am told that the second respondent's son had a right so to assign a share in the property, because it is alleged that on the death of the minor, the son of the second respondent became one of the reversionary heirs to the estate. When the application came on for hearing before me last week, I intimated to the learned Vakil for the petitioner, Mr. Jayarama Iyer, that I had my doubts whether such an application would be maintained under the Guardians and Wards Act after the death of the minor, I have now been referred to the case of Nataraja Pillai v. Subbaraya Pillai 51 Ind. Cas. 529 : (1918) M.W.N. 410. In that case, Oldfield and Sadasiva Iyer, JJ., held that the words 'for ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kandasami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad346; 92Ind.Cas.862; (1926)50MLJ44
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise tire order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi, under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C., by which he is directed to pay rupees ten (Rs. 10) per mensem as maintenance to his first wife. The order contains no clear issues or findings and the Magistrate should understand that vituperation adds nothing to the force of a judicial pronouncement.2. Apparently upon the evidence of counter-petitioner and her three witnesses, the Magistrate finds that she was driven out of her home, not allowed to come back, and refused maintenance. He rejects the defence evidence to the contrary because He thinks the plea of enmity 'rather mamool' meaning presumably that it is a false plea often advanced. He finds that though slightly lame the counter-petitioner is able to work and accordingly he orders rupees ten (Rs. 10) per mensem, not an extravagant rate: for people in decent circumstances. He also hopes that the family will assist the husband to find the money....
Tag this Judgment!R. Bhunjanga Rao Vs. Periyathambi Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1047
Ramesam, J.1. The first point argued by the learned Advocate General before me in this batch of second appeals is that the Estate's Land Act does not apply to the case. To understand this point it is necessary to set forth the history of the suit village. Exhibit D is a statement dated the 15th day of January 1873 initialed by Mr. Whiteside the then Collector of North Arcot. It is headed 'statement showing the particulars of shrotriem mole-am sarvamaniam villagers in the minor estate of Ami jaghir, North Arcot District.' It shows that the suit village of Rajammarpuram was granted by the then jaghirdar Thirumala Rao Saheb in Fasli 1211 to the ancestor of the defendant's vendor K. Krishna Rao. The grantee seems to have applied that certain lands may be given to him on cowle tenure for constructing a tank and building a village. The suit-village was granted to him and for the first- two years after the grant, no assessment was fixed. It was said that the assessment will be fixed after two...
Tag this Judgment!Vemulamanda Bhadrayya and anr. Vs. Penumetcha Jaggaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad177
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur, in A.S. No. 191 of 1922.2. The decree-holder, in O.S. No. 1156 of 1913 filed execution applications, in 1914, 1918 and 1919. On 7th December, 1921 the judgment-debtor moved the Court of execution under Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code for a declaration that the execution petition of 1918 was barred by limitation, and thus the proceedings of 1919 would also not be valid.3. It has been found by the District Munsif in the original proceedings that the petitioner was duly appraised of the execution petition of 1919 and then was the time that she should have contested the validity of that of 1918. The question for determination is whether she can raise the plea at this late stage.4. The case reported in Rajitagiripathy v. Bhavani Sankaran : AIR1934Mad673 , is good authority for holding that such pleas should be advanced at the earliest opportunity and if the party fails to take action, he cannot raise them on s...
Tag this Judgment!Savan Durga Bai Ammal Vs. S. Ramanatha Rao Alias Rama Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad64; (1925)49MLJ632
1. The order appealed against was an order by a Judge sitting on the Original Side of this Court refusing to direct certain allegations in defendants' written statement to be struck out at the instance of the plaintiff as being unnecessary and scandalous.2. In our opinion the Judge's order in this case was not a ' judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and consequently is not appealable. The application was not one which started independent proceedings ancillary to the suit [see the observations of White, C.J. in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1910) M 1 nor could its effect in any event be to put an end to the suit. The order, of course, concluded the proceedings in which the application was made, if that could be regarded as a separate and independent proceeding, but the same might be said of every order made by a Court in the course of the trial of a suit. The proceeding in which Waller, J.'s order was passed was part of the proceedings in the suit it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »