Chennai Court August 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vasteva Holla and anr. Vs. P. Mahabala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad405
Phillips, J.1. In this appeal against a redemption decree, the defendants, mortgagees, raise three points for consideration. The first point urged is that the mortgagees are entitled to set-off the enhanced assessment which has been paid by them and add it to the mortgage amount. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee is bound to pay enhanced assessment unless there is a contract to the contrary, and if this principle is to be applied, although this particular mortgage was executed before the Transfer of Property Act was passed, I think that the mortgagees would be bound to pay the enhanced assessment themselves, because I can read no contract to the contrary in the document. There is a provision that the mortgagees shall pay assessment and that they should get the revenue registry in their own names, in virtue of which they would themselves be called upon to pay the assessment leviable at any particular time. Two cases were relied on by the appellants Subbarow v. Venkata Na...
G. Govindasami Pillai Vs. V.E.N.K.R.R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad164; (1925)49MLJ630
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He and the defendants 1, 2 and 3 are trustees of the temple of Chayavanam in Tanjore District. Defendants 2 and 3 were appointed in 1911 and 1st defendant in 1908. The plaintiff alleged that one Ramalingam Pillai was the common agent of the parties and on account of his mismanagement disputes arose, which culminated in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. During the pendency of those proceedings Ramalingam Pillai died but the Magistrate ordered the attachment of the temple and the properties. The plaint in para. 9 alleges that the order of the Magistrate attaching the properties is illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the properties. The cause of action is given as the order of the Magistrate dated 17th August, 1918 and the plaintiff prays for a declaration that ' he is entitled to joint possession and enjoyment of the properties described hereunder along with the defendants.' There is no prayer...
Ravipati Ramaiah Vs. Ravipati Lakshmi Narayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad234; (1925)49MLJ701
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit to recover certain property alleging that he was the reversionary heir of one Venkanna. The property had been in the possession of Narasamma, a female relation of Venkanna, and, according to the plaintiff, her possession was under licence from him. He therefore sued to recover the property ifrom the defendants who were in possession after Narasamrna's death. The suit was dismissed. The present suit was brought to recover the same property from the same defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was the heir of Narasamma who had been in possession of the property. The Lower Courts have found that this suit is barred under Section 11, Explanation IV of the Civil Procedure Code and the Court of First Instance relies on the decision in Govinda Menokki v. Govinda Kurup (1919) 10 LW 170 for its decision. That case appears to be very much in point, as also a very recent case reported in Muhammad Rowther v. Abdul Rehman Rowther ILR (1922) ...
In Re: Arumuga Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad420; (1926)50MLJ51
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In this case I ordered originally that the matter might be posted before a Bench constituted by Venkata-subba Rao, J., and myself, because I was under the impression that the order made by that learned Judge directing notice to the Public Prosecutor amounted, as generally it is understood in criminal matters, to an order admitting the appeal. But I have since ascertained that the learned Judge never intended those words to convey that significance and that as a matter of fact the learned Judge did not admit the appeal and all that he directed notice about was whether once a criminal appeal had been dismissed by one Judge another appeal could be heard at the instance of the same appellant on the ground that on the previous occasion owing to some mistake, counsel did not appear for the appellant. In view, therefore, of there being no order of Venkatasubba Rao, J., admitting the appeal, it has become unnecessary for any matter being heard by a Bench of Judges.2. T...
Gaddam Chowdanna Having Died His Legal Representative C.H. Pedda Raju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ429
Phillips, J.1. In this case the appellant-defendant was the holder of a certain inam grant given by the Zamindar of Kangundi whose representative is now the plaintiff-respondent, in 1806. Both the Lower Courts have found that this estate was settled in 1797 and consequently this grant to the defendant's predecessor was a post-settlement grant. The only evidence of the nature of the grant is contained in Ex. A which says that it was for a service to attend daily on the Zamindar as he performs devotions, etc. This undoubtedly is a personal service to the Zemindar, and the question arises as to whether it is resumable or not. It does not appear to be a grant burdened with service, but rather a grant in lieu of wages, for there is no evidence that there was any reason for the grant except that the grantee should perform in the future the service enumerated. That being so, it has always been held in this Court that the Zemindar is entitled to put an end to such service at his pleasure and r...
Pathinti Gundappa Vs. Karnam Narasappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad455
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu reversioner to recover the properties of one Mailarappa after the death on 9th July 1917, of his daughter Narasamma in whom the estate last vested. The relationship of the plaintiffs to Mailarappa as reversioners appears in the pedigree set forth in the District Judge's judgment and is not now disputed. The properties which were the subject of the appeal fall into two sub-divisions: (1) the properties in Schedule A; (2) the properties in Schedules B and C. Taking up the first item, Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar the learned vakil for the appellant raised two contentions: first, that it is not shown that the properties belonged to the estate of the propositus, Mailarappa; secondly, the suit is barred by limitation under the old Limitation Act of 1859.2. Exhibit D shows the patta in the name of Dhalappa, Mailarappa's grandfather. Exhibit C shows it is in the name of his father and Ex. B shows it in the name of himself. Ex. E show...
Venkataranga Aiyar and anr. Vs. C.S. Ramasamy Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad173
Spencer, O.C.J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of a written and registered agreement, dated 26th October, 1917, to sell immoveable property entered into by the 1st and 2nd defendants and their brother, Velusamy Goundan. Defendants 3 and 4, who appeal put forward an anterior oral agreement on 15th October, 1917, to sell the lands to them. The existence of this prior agreement formed the subject of the 2nd issue which the trial Court found against these defendants. The correctness of this finding is the main question argued in appeal. When we are asked to disturb findings of fact based entirely upon oral evidence, we must always feel some hesitation before coming to a different conclusion from that of the Judge who heard and saw the witnesses deposing. This is additionally so, when that course would involve giving credit to witnesses who have been disbelieved in the Court below, and when it involves accepting a story which, judged merely upon probabilities, sounds hard to acce...
In Re: R.V. Kaliappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad296
ORDER1. These are applications to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore refusing permission to withdraw Sessions Cases Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1925. Dr. Swaminathan contends that the learned Judge has misdirected himself as to what he should do in a case of this kind. The application was made by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 and he gave certain reasons for the withdrawal of the cases. The Sessions Judge has considered the reasons and has come to the conclusion that these were not fit cases for withdrawal. He relies upon the decision in Rajani Kanta Shaha v. Idris Thakur [1921] 48 Cal. 1105 and says that where there is evidence against the accused which, if believed, would end in conviction, it would not be proper to give permission to withdrawn a case under Section 494. But that is not the only reason which should guide a Court in granting or refusing permission. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in refusi...
In Re: R.V. Kaliappa Goundan and ors.; in Re: R.V. Maniam Sellappa Gou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.750
ORDER1. These are applications to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore refusing permission to withdraw Sessions Cases Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1925. Dr. Swaminathan contends that the learned Judge has misdirected himself as to what he should do in a case of this kind. The application was made by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 and he gave certain reasons for the withdrawal of the cases. The Sessions Judge has considered the reasons and has come to the conclusion that these cases were not fit cases for withdrawal. He relies upon the decision in Rajani Kanta Shaha v. Idris Thakur 25 C.W.N. 615 : 31 C.L.J. 51 : 22 Cr. L.J. 760 and says that where there is evidence against the accused which, if believed, would end in conviction, it would not be proper to give permission to withdraw a case under Section 494. But that is not the only reason which would guide a Court in granting or refusing permission. In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exer...
Thayammal Vs. Perumal Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad284; (1925)49MLJ734
Phillips, J. 1. The appeal only deals with the question of interest, but a Memorandum of Objections has been filed by respondents 1 and 2, defendants 2 and 3 in which the whole decree is sought to be impeached and it will be necessary to deal with the Memorandum of Objeptions first.2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Ramu Chetti, whose brothers, Perumal Chetti and Gopal Chetti, are defendants 2 and 3. In her plaint she alleges that her father deposited with Madar Saheb, 1st defendant, a sum of Rs. 4,000 out of his self-acquisitions and directed that defendants 2 and 3 should, out of the said sum and its interest, pay the plaintiff's marriage expenses and hand over the balance to her on her attaining majority. Both the Lower Courts have found that Ramu Chetti had no self-acquisitions and that he and his two brothers were members of an undivided family whose whole property was held as joint family property. It has also been found that there was no entrustment to the 1st defendant, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »