Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
Palikanji Chettiar Vs. Krishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad863; 94Ind.Cas.983
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Periyakulam in I.A. No. 273 of 1923 in O.S. No. 1395 of 1920.2. The plaintiff sued in 1920 to set aside a sale effected by his guardian in 1895 four years before he reached his majority in 1899. In paragraph 8 of his plaint he has stated that his guardian informed him that she sold the, property because she was deceived by plaintiff's elder brother. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that the sale deed contains fraudulent conditions. There is no other mention , of fraud. In his written statement the defendant contended that plaintiff having failed to file a suit within 3 years of his attaining majority is barred by limitation (paragraph 11). Issues were framed, the second issue being : 'Is the suit in time in so far as it seeks to avoid the sale ?' One witness was examined and then plaintiff applied under Order 23, Rule 1 Civil, P.C. to withdraw his suit with leave to institute a fresh suit. His difficulty was t...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council by Its Chairman Vs. T. Shunmugha Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.610
Spencer, J.1. The Tuticorin Municipal Council which through its Chairman preferred this revision petition, resolved to require wholesale dealers in grain to take out licenses under Section 249 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and accordingly published a notification under Section 328 in the Tinnevelly District Gazette. The respondent, who was one of such whole-sale dealers, paid the fees demanded of him under protest, and brought a suit in the Small Cause Court to recover what was illegally collected from him. He succeeded in obtaining a decree for a portion of his claim. The District Munsif held that he was not liable to take out licenses for godowns in which rice and broken rice etc., were stored for the whole sale trade but only for grain stores. It is contended for the petitioner that the word 'grain' in Schedule V(o) to the Act includes rice and broken rice.2. The District Munsif observed:-- 'Paddy without husk is rice. Rice is not a seed and does not sprout o...
Tag this Judgment!Komiresetti Satyanarayana Vs. Yeeranki Chinna Venkatarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad530; (1926)50MLJ674
Victor, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada wherein he gave certain reliefs by way of specific relief to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that certain sums of money were due to them as debts from various people. It is not material for the purposes of our decision to know how those debts were alleged to have come into existence, what was their nature or what were the relations to the plaintiffs of the various parties to the transactions in question. The transaction was that an agreement was entered into for the sale of certain property in extinguishment of the plaintiffs' claims. The agreement that was entered into by the contracting parties was this 'We shall execute the sale deed for this as per your draft and give it to you registered within three months from this date' so that undoubtedly under that document it was part of the obligation of the defendants to get the deed that was in contemplation by this agreement drawn up and executed...
Tag this Judgment!Komirisetti Satyanarayana Vs. Yeeranki China Venkatarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.385
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada wherein he gave certain remedies by way of specific relief to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that certain sums of money were due to them as debts from various people. It is not material for the purposes of our decision to know how those debts were alleged to have come into existence, what was their nature or what were the relations to the plaintiffs of the various parties to the transactions in question. The transaction was that an agreement was entered into for the sale of certain property in extinguishment of the plaintiffs' claims. The agreement that was entered into by the contracting parties was this: 'We shall execute the sale-deed for this as per your draft and give it to you registered within three months from this date,' so that undoubtedly under that document it was part of the obligation of the defendants to get the deed that was in contemplation by this agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaya Nadar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad56; 97Ind.Cas.748
Odgers, J.1. In this case 13 accused were tried before the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly, as to all of them with having formed an unlawful assembly on or about 6th December, 1924, with the common object of forcibly taking a marriage procession through non-Nadar streets and with the intention of causing hurt to the non-Nadars and committing mischief, thefts and dacoity in regard to their property, etc., offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323; as to accused Nos. 1, 3 and 7 that they being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly, were armed with guns and accused Nos. 2 and 4 with aruvals [Small swords.--Ed.], etc., an offence under Section 148; as to accused Nos. 8, 11 and 13 that they, in the course of the same transaction as the rioting and in furtherance of the common object, stole a cart, an offence under Section 370; as to accused Nos. 2, 5 and 7 that they broker into the house of Karuppayi and committed theft of a trunk, etc., offences under Sections 454. and 393; as to ac...
Tag this Judgment!Alapati Ramaswami Vs. Dasari Venkataranayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.330
Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. Second appeal by plaintiff against the decree of the District Judge of Guntur in A.S. No 332 of 1920.2. The question to be considered in this appeal is one of limitation, and the facts are as follows:--The defendant executed a hypothecation bond Ex. A on 10th October 1917. Under this bond a sum of Rs. 2,000, was due to the plaintiff and the defendant undertook to deliver 7 candies of paddy every year for a period of eight-years. The paddy was deliverable on Pushya Bahula 30th of every year, and in case default was made in the delivery of the paddy, the defendant made himself liable to pay the market value of the paddy in Ponnur market on the 30th Phalguna Bahula of the same year. There is also a provision in the bond to the effect that in case the first instalment was not fully paid, the last instalment also became due and that in case the second instalment was not paid the seventh instalment also became due; and so on. For the first instalment a small quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Ry. Pratapa Simha Rajah Saheb, th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad244; (1925)49MLJ704
1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore declining to make the appellants parties to O.S. No. 3 of 1919 on the file of the Court. The appellants applied to the Lower Court to be made parties to the suit on the ground that they were mortgagees of the interest of Pratapa Simha Rajah, the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 3 of 1919. The contention of the appellants is that they have got a mortgage of the interest of the 2nd defendant in the suit and that they are therefore entitled to be made parties to the suit. The learned Judge has considered the petition on the merits and has declined to make them parties. The petitioners have taken a mortgage of the share of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 1,70,000. The suit was decreed some time ago and the appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge was disposed of by this Court in 1923. Pursuant to the decree of the High Court, the properties in suit are being divided, and a sum of about Rs. 70,000 is said to be in deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharama Naidu Vs. Govindasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.976
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question in this, second appeal is whether the real owner of a ryotwari holding can sue in a Civil Court for a declaration that certain lands belong to him and that a sale under the provisions of the Estates Land Act was 'fraudulent, illegal, invalid and not binding, on him '. Plaintiff who is the appellant in second appeal alleging that he was the real owner of the lands, and that the registered holder Rangaswami Naidu was only a benamidar sued to have a rent sale held at the instance of the first defendant, at which the second defendant became the purchaser, set aside on various grounds. The District Munsif found as a fact (1) that the notice Ex. X did not specify the holding in respect of which the arrear was due; and (2) that a large number of fields and a larger extent than necessary were sold in contravention cf the provisions of Section 126 of the Estates Land Act. On these findings he held that the sale was invalid and gave the declaration asked for....
Tag this Judgment!Sree Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Raja of Kalahasti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad872
Devadoss, J.1. The taluk of Pamur in Kalahasti zamin was sold by the District Court of Nellore on 25th August 1914, in execution of the decree in C.S. No. 187 of 1912 and was knocked down for Rs. 6,90,000 to one Ramagarji Neelakanthagarji who made a deposit of 25 per cent. of the amount of his bid and subsequently defaulted to pay the balance The property was again put up to sale, but did not fetch more than Rs. 1,01,000. The decree-holder in C. S. No. 187 of 1912. there upon applied to the Court under Order 21, Rule 71 for the recovery of the difference between Rs. 6,90,000 and Rs. 1,01,000 from the defaulting purchaser. The District Judge dismissed his application but the High Court in L.P.A. No. 42 of 1917 set aside the order of the District Judge and directed him to dispose of the petition according to law.2. Several persons who had obtained decrees against the Raja of Kalahasti applied to the District Court for attachment of the deposit made on 25th August 1914 and prayed in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Umade Raja Rajai Raja Damara Kuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.86
Devadoss, J.1. The Taluk of Pamur in Kalahasti zamin was sold by the District Court of Nellore on 25th August, 1914, in execution of the decree in C.S. No. 187 of 1912 and was knocked down for Rs. 6,90,000 to one Ramagarji' Neelakanthagarji who made, a deposit of 25 per cent, of the amount of his bid and subsequently defaulted to pay the balance. The property was again put up to sale but did not fetch more than Rs. 1,01,000. The decree-holder in Order 8. No. 187 of 1912 thereupon applied to the Court under Order XXI, Rule 71, for the recovery of the difference between Rs. 6,90,000 and Rs. 1,01,000 from the defaulting purchaser. The District Judge dismissed his application, but the High Court in Annavajhula Venkatachellamayya Garu v. Ramagirjee Neelakanta Girjee (1918) M.W.N. 121 : 41 M. 474 set aside the order of the District Judge and directed him to dispose of the petition according to law.2. Several persons who had obtained decrees against the Raja of Kalahasti applied to the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »