Chennai Court November 1926 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.
Vobilineni Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Rajah of Pithapur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.613; (1927)53MLJ400
1. The plaintiff, who is the Rajah of Pithapur, brought this suit under Section 6 of the Madras Act (I of 1876) (Madras Land Revenue Assessment Act) to have it declared that the suit lands should be separately registered in the name of the 2nd defendant. To establish a cause of action for a suit of this nature, it is essential that the property which the plaintiff wishes to have separately registered should have once formed part of his permanently settled estate and should at the time of the suit belong to a different owner. Accordingly in his plaint it was averred that the lands described in the schedule and situate in the village of Dangeru were portions of the permanently settled estate of Pithapurani and were alienated by plaintiff's ancestors in favour of the predecessors-in-title of defendants 2 to 19. The defendants in their written statement counter-pleaded that the suit lands were gifted to their ancestors by the Nizam of Hyderabad before the Permanent Settlement.2. When the c...
K.V. Santhanakrishna Naidu and anr. Vs. K.S. Chellappa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad650
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of this High Court sitting on the Original Side. A suit was brought by two persons who were carrying on a dramatic company business in Madras against one Chellappier who was also a partner of theirs in that business. Of the three persons the 1st plaintiff was the manager of the business, the 2nd plaintiff and his brother, the defendant, were both of them actors. They entered into partnership for the period of three years from 1919 to 1922. One of the conditions of the partnership was that the defendant should continue as a member for the period of three years and continue to act for the company. A clause was put into the partnership deed Ex. B which runs as follows:Should any of us three go away from our company within the period mentioned above, he shall not only lose all the rights which he may be entitled to in respect of the said company but also be liable to pay damages which may be claimed by the othe...
(Ampassemteketh Natamal) Kutti Pokker Vs. (Ampassemteketh Natamal) Uss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1134
Curgenven, J.1. By a registered partition karar, dated 18th March 1911, a division was effected between defendant 1 (now appellant), and his brothers and some, others, and the share in the immovable property which defendant 1 would otherwise have received was augmented in consideration of an obligation imposed upon him to pay certain sums aggregating to Rs. 500 including a sum of Rs. 250 to the widow of a deceased brother and to her daughter, the latter of whom (the mother having died) is the plaintiff and a respondent in the second appeal. Both Courts have allowed the claim. The question now left for disposal is whether upon a point of limitation it has been rightly held that Section 10, Limitation Act, applies.2. This question depends primarily upon whether the partition karar created a trust in respect of the sums payable by defendant 1 and in particular in respect of the suit claim of Rs. 250. The document recites that the defendant has undertaken to pay the sums specified and acco...
Natamal Kutti Pokker Vs. Natamal Ussan Mayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.506
Curgenven, J.1. By a registered partition karar dated 18th March, 1911, a division, was effected between the first defendant (now appellant) and his brothers and some other, and the share in the immoveable property which the first defendant would otherwise have received was augmented inconsideration of an obligation imposed upon him to pay certain sum aggregating Rs. 500 including a sum of Rs. 250 to the widow of the deceased brother and to her daughter, the latter of whom (the mother having died) is the first plaintiff and a respondent in this second appeal. Both Courts have allowed the claim. The question now left for disposal is whether upon the point of limitation it has been rightly held that Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies.2. This question depends primarily upon whether the partition karar created trusted in respect of the sums payable by the first defendant, and, in particular, in respect of the suit claim of Rs. 250. The document recites that the first defendant has un...
K.V. Santhanakrishna Iyer and anr. Vs. K.V. Chellappa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.390
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of this High Court sitting on the Original Side. A suit was brought by two persons who were carrying on a dramatic company business in Madras against one Chellappier who was also a partner of theirs in that business. Of the three persons the first plaintiff was the manager of the business, the 2nd plaintiff and his brother, the defendant were both of them actors. They entered into partnership for the period of three years from 1919 to 1922. One of the conditions of the partnership was that the defendant should continue as a member for the period of three years and continue to act for the Company. A clause was put into the partnership deed Ex. B which runs as follows: 'Should any of us three go away from our Company within the period mentioned above he shall not only lose all the rights which he may be entitled to in respect of the said Company but also be liable to pay damages which may be claimed by the ot...
Badam Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Yalla Bullayya Alias Venkatachelam (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad568; 101Ind.Cas.85; (1927)52MLJ323
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 have preferred this second appeal which arises out of a suit brought for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights that defendants 1 and 2 have permanent occupancy rights in the suit lands is not correct. Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by both the Lower Courts on the ground of limitation and on the merits. The main contention of the plaintiffs was that the suit land, which formed part of the Pittapur Zemindari, was granted as a Kattubadi Inam prior to the Permanent Settlement and that the plaintiffs' father became the purchaser of this land in 1892 from the original inamdars. The contention of defendants 1 and 2 is to the effect.2. that the suit is barred by limitation, that the plaintiffs should have filed this suit in the District Munsif's Court but have.con-trived to file it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge by overvaluing their claim for purposes of jurisdiction and that the suit land is a Dharmilla inam, that is, a post-se...
Kanagammal Vs. Pandara Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ176
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. In 1921 the petitioner applied for and obtained an order against her husband, the counter-petitioner, under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the 'payment of maintenance for herself and her daughter at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem. Subsequently, during the years 1922-23, she returned to the counter-petitioner and lived with him, bearing him another child. She then left him again and in 1924 applied to execute the maintenance order, but her petition was dismissed. Then she came up to this Court in revision (Cr.R.C. No. 52 of 1925) and Jackson, J., cancelled the Sub-divisional Magistrate's order rejecting her application, leaving it to him either to give her arrears under the old order or, if it was found that the order was no longer in existence, to let her file a fresh application. Accordingly on 22nd August, 1925 she filed a petition for 11 months' arrears of maintenance up to that date. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, in the order which it is n...
Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Chitta Venkata Lakshmanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ335
Curgenven, J.1. Plaintiff, who is the owner and occupant of a house within the Masulipatam Municipality, was served with a notice issued in pursuance of a resolution of the Municipal Council to remove the latrine attached to her house and have it constructed in another place. She thereupon filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for an injunction restraining the Municipal Council from enforcing the order. On behalf of the plaintiff, questions were raised whether the order was within the competence of the Municipality, and if it were within its competence, whether on the merits it was an order which in the circumstances should have been given. The defendant on the other hand contended that a suit of this character would not lie. This point, however, as well as the contention that this Court can enter into the merits of the case for removing the latrine has now been given up and we are only concerned with the question whether the notice was intra vires.2. At the time when i...
Velu Pillai and ors. Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad852
Reilly, J.1. This suit relates to an inani granted for the support of the piper of a temple at Madura. Defendant 12 held the office until 1892, when he was dismissed. Plaintiff 1 was then appointed by the trustee of the temple and held office until 1914. After him plaintiff 3 held office for about two years; and since 1916, about three months after plaintiff 2 came into office, the Government resumed the inam, granted pattas for the inam lands to the persons in possession of it and ordered that the assessment collected on the land should be paid to the piper office for the time being as long he did his work satisfactorily. In this suit plaintiffs 1 to 3 pray for a declaration that the transfer of the land by the Government from inam to ayan is illegal and invalid and for the recovery of the land from the defendants in possession. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif. Plaintiff 1 died while the suit was before the District Munsif. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 appealed; but the 'Subordina...
S. M. S. Gopala Aiyar Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1116
Waller, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff who seeks to recover a sum of money levied from him by way of water cess. His suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed on appeal. The case is a perfectly simple one. The main question at issue was whether the plaintiff had used the water of a particular channel which he denied having done. Both parties went to trial on the mutual assumption that this channel was a surplus channel and on an admission of the plaintiff that his source of irrigation was another channel called Chinnamadai. The real question was, therefore, as I have already observed, whether the plaintiff had used the water of the surplus channel. The Munsif allowed himself to be misled, to the extent of finding that the channel was not a surplus channel at all and that the real issue on the case was misleading and unnecessary. Matters were put right by the lower appellate Court. Mr. Subramanya Iyer argues that the lower appellate Court was wrong in interpreting the plea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »