Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
(Vathi) Veerabhadrayya and ors. Vs. Tangadu Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad415
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Appeal by plaintiffs against the decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam, in Appeal Suit No. 32 of 1920.2. The only question in this second appeal is whether the appeal was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in Second Appeal No. 1103 of 1914. The suit out of which the appeal arises was for the removal of elevations of earth raised by the defendants in the Batte marked C in the plan not shown here and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing in any manner the free flow of water to the Versirikajola tank marked A in the plan, according to mamool, along the Batte C. Both the Courts have held that the decision in the previous litigation operated as res judicata.3. The previous suit out of which Second Appeal No. 1103 of 1914 arose was instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of the Batte C after removing certain obstructions put up, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from meddling with...
Tag this Judgment!(Peria Nambi) Srinivasachariar Vs. Kuna Ramasamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad509
1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul directing payment of Court-fee on the amount mentioned in the plaint as damages on the ground that the proper Court-fee was not paid. The first plaintiff has preferred this petition.2. The contention of Mr. Rajah Iyer, for the petitioner, is that the order of the Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction inasmuch as his client was entitled to ask in a scheme suit for an account against the trustee. No doubt in a scheme suit a decree may be passed against the trustee in office to account for the income of the property which was under his management. But in this case what the plaintiff has done is to ask for a specific sum to be paid by the defendant as damages for the, loss caused to the suit devasthanam by the defendants' misconduct. Claiming damages on account of misconduct is not one of the reliefs under Section 92, Civil P.C.3. If the plaintiffs wanted the defendant to account for the income of the i...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Nambi Srinivasachariar Vs. Kuna Ramasamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.526
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul directing payment of Court-fee on the amount mentioned in* the plaint as damages on the ground that the proper Court-fee was not paid. The first plaintiff has preferred this petition.2. The contention of Mr. Rajah Iyer, for the petitioner, is that the order of the Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction inasmuch as his client was entitled to ask in a scheme suit for an account against the trustee. No doubt in a scheme suit a decree may be passed against the trustee in office to account for the income of the property which was under his management. But in this case what the plaintiff has done is to ask for a specific sum to be paid by the defendant as damages-for the loss caused to the said devasthanamby the defendants' misconduct. Claiming damages on account , of misconduct is not one of the reliefs under Section 92, C.P.C.3. If the plaintiffs wanted the defendant to account for the income...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyaru Pillai Vs. Varadaraja Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad431; 92Ind.Cas.770; (1926)50MLJ116
Devadoss, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore recognising the assignment of the decree in favour of the petitioner in the lower Court. The contention of Mr. Ram-a--swami Iyer for the petitioner is that it was not competent for the assignee decree-holder to make the application he did to the Court executing the decree The decree was passed on 12th April 1915 by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tanjore. It was, transferred for execution to the District Munsif's Court of Tanjore by an application, dated 18th July 1916. The assignee decree-holder applied to the District Munsif's Court on 10th February 1920 for the issue of notice to the defendant under Order XXI, Rule 22, and asked 'that the records may be transferred along with a certificate to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tanjore fer the purpose of further conducting the suit.' In it he also stated that the decree had-been transferred to him by assignment. The question is, whether this is an ap...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Ramalinga Mudaliar Vs. Arunachala Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad386
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Devadoss confirming the judgment of the Judge of the City Civil Court. On the 18th June 1862, one Mannappa Mudaliar mortgaged a cawnie of land situated in Perambur in this city to Velayuda Mudaliar for Rs. 50. By the document of mortgage, Ex. B, he undertook to repay this sum within the end of February 1870 together with interest thereon at Rs. 2 per cent. per mensem. '' In default of such payment you are to treat this itself as an absolute sale and enjoy together with rights to water, trees, minerals, etc., therein from generation to generation so long as the sum and moon exist and with powers of alienation by way of gift, exchange or sale.' At the end of 1920 the grandson of Mannappa Mudali, the present plaintiff brought a suit in the City Civil Court to redeem this property which had been, unquestionably and admittedly in the possession of the mortgagee and his descendants since some time in 1870. The exact time may become import...
Tag this Judgment!(Akella) Ramasomayajullu and ors. Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad360
Devadoss, J.1. The appellants are the sons of the insolvent. They applied to the lower Court for stay of sale advertised to be held on 29th August 1924 by the Official Receiver of Godaveri, on the ground that they were divided from the insolvent and. that their shares should not be sold. The learned Judge has not considered the question whether the shares of the appellants are liable to satisfy the debts of the insolvent, He-has allowed the Official Receiver to sell the insolvent's interests in the property leaving to future litigation to determine the rights of the parties. We consider, in a case like this, it is not proper that the insolvent's property should be sold when there is a cloud on the title which could be removed by a proper proceeding under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. We, therefore, set aside the order and direct the District Judge to restore the application to file and treat it as an application under Section 4 of the Act and dispose of it according to la...
Tag this Judgment!Akella Ramasomayyagulu and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver, Godavari Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.249
1. The appellants are the sons of the insolvent. They applied to the lower Court for stay of sale advertised to be held on 29th August 1924 by the Official Receiver of Godavari on the ground that they were divided from the insolvent and that their shares should not be sold. The learned Judge has not considered the question whether the shares of the appellants are liable to satisfy the debts of the insolvent. He has allowed the Official Receiver to sell the insolvent's interest in the property leaving it to future litigation to determine the rights of the parties. We consider in a case like this it is not proper that the insolvent's property should be sold when there is a cloud on the title which could be removed by a proper proceeding under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. We, therefore, set aside the order and direct the District Judge to restore the application to file and treat it as an application under Section 4 of the Act and dispose of it according to law. The Officia...
Tag this Judgment!Appadurai Mudali and anr. Vs. Murugappa Mudali and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad772; (1926)51MLJ12
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Devadoss whereby he remanded an appeal for trial after raising a fresh issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as it was lent to a partnership which was illegal. The plaint sets up the promissory note sued on. The defendants 1 and 3 say that they (defendants1 to 3) took the contract of sale of arrack in certain shops in Vaniyambadi for the year 1916-17. They borrowed the money for the purpose of that business and they plead a discharge by payment, i. e., that under certain arrangements made between themselves and the plaintiff, the latter had a surplus sufficient to cover the amount of the promissory note in his hands. The 2nd defendant pleaded that the arrangement was that the plaintiff should appropriate to discharge the pro-note the sale proceeds which he received on behalf of the defendants for the last 80 days of the year 1916-17. Two issues were framed, namely (1) as to whether there ...
Tag this Judgment!Pitta Ramaswamiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad49
1. The assessee in this case put in a statement of his income amounting to Rs. 420. At a later stage when he was called upon to produce his accounts and so forth to substantiate that statement, he did not do so and said that the officer could assess him on the materials he could find. Thereupon the officer proceeded to estimate the income which turned out in his judgment to be much larger than what the assessee stated and it being, in his opinion, a gross case of misstatement of income, assessed him and from that assessment the assessee appealed.2. In appeal he did not succeed in persuading the Court that he had been wrongly assessed but he did persuade the appellate authority that it was a very gross case of misstatement of his income. Thereupon he was fined Rs. 250 under Section 28 of the Act. Now he appeals against that and the chief ground he takes is that the proceedings before the appellate income-tax authority were coram non judice because he says he acted under S. 23 (4) and no...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshisundara Nachiar Vs. Al. V. R. P. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad122
1. Second appeal by defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad, in Appeal No. 100 of 1921.2. The only question which has to be considered in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the plaintiff's claim for contribution based upon Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. A common channel irrigated the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that he repaired this channel after informing the defendant, and that the defendant was bound to contribute towards the repairs made. Both the Courts found that the repairs were done that the defendant was benefited by the repair; and that the plaintiff did not intend to bear all the expenses himself.3. It was urged before me on the authority of the decision in Sundara Iyer v. Ananthapadmanaba Iyer A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 64. that the plaintiff could not succeed, because he was also benefited by the act. Observations in Viswanadha Vijia Kumara Bongaroo v. R. G. Orr [1918] 45 I. C. 7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »