Chennai Court December 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.
Veerabhadra Pillai Vs. (Kadambi) Ramunaja Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1086; 101Ind.Cas.833
1. The facts necessary for deciding this second appeal are briefly these: One Seetharama Aiyangar and his nephew owned a village called Rangapanditha Agraharam. They sold it to defendants 2 and 3 and one Veeraraghavachari in 1907 for Rs. 3,500 and on the same day got from the vendees a mortgage deed for the amount. Under this document (Ex. 3) the price had to be paid in instalments extending over 8 years. There was a forfeiture clause that, if payments were not made on the due dates, the sums already paid should be forfeited and the vendors might take possession of the village. The payments not having been made regularly, the vendors instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale. Meanwhile, the three vendees had sold half of the village to defendant 1 on the 15th August 1908 for Rs 1,750 (see Ex. 6) for discharging the mortgage-debt under Ex. 3. He was, therefore, added as a party to the suit. He also obtained from defendants 2 and 3 a usufructuary mortgage in respect of their remaini...
Venugopal Reddy and anr. Vs. Muthuswami Kavundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1110
1. No appeal lies. Sevak. Jeranchod Bhogilal v. Dakore Temple Committee Sivan Pillai v. Venkateswara A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 130 and Abdul Hakim Baig v. Muhammed Burrammuddin A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 559.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of objections is also dismissed with costs....
Kumarandy Kudumban (Died) and ors. Vs. Venkatasubramania Aiyar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad645; 101Ind.Cas.58; (1927)52MLJ641
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are Pallars, sue on behalf of all the Pallars of four villages for a declaration of their exclusive right to the fishery in the Periakulam tank in Nenmeni village, Satur taluq, and for incidental reliefs. The defendants deny the plaintiffs' right to the fishery and contend that the pangalis of the village alone are the owners of the fishery right. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as being barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 501 of 1907 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Satur. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The first point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by reason of the decision in the previous suit. O.S. No. 501 of 1907 was by the Pallars against several persons. In that case the plaintiffs set up an exclusive right of the Palla inhabitants of four villages, Perumbacheri, Vannimadai, Kalungapatti and Pottalpacheri, to the fishery in the Peri...
Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju and anr. Vs. Dantuluri Chandrayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad825; (1927)53MLJ267
ORDER1. The office has now submitted its report and, according to it, the appeal should be valued so far as it seeks to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 46 of 1908 at Rs. 337,391 and the Court-fee on it is Rs. 3,502-7-0. This value is arrived at excluding the moveable property in the suit as no relief is asked with reference to it but calculating the value of the immoveable property under Section 7(v)(b) at ten times the revenue. It is clear that the appellants are asking for the decree to be set aside and the subject-matter of that decree so sought to be set aside is the whole of the immoveable property in that suit.2. One point raised is whether the market value of the property should not be taken for the purpose of this valuation or whether the statutory value should be adopted. We think the latter is the proper course as there is nothing in the Act to show that the market value is the value contemplated in Section 7(iv)(a). When there is in the Act itself a special rule as to valui...
(Kalluri) Lakshminarayana Vs. Kalluri Punnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad820
JUDGEMENT1. In the village of Mopparum, Tenali taluq, there is a Hindu temple dedicated to Sri Venugopalaswami. In the year 1872 the adoptive father of the plaintiff and 18 persons including the defendants endowed this temple with 4 acres 62 cents of land for the annual celebration of Kalyana Utsavam. The plaint alleges that the donors continued to manage this property and celebrate the Utsavam through the defendants till 1914, when the plaintiff was appointed to carry on the work. There were two factions in the village, one supporting the plaintiff and the other, defendant 1. For some time the relations between the plaintiff and defendants were amicable, but each trying to exclude the other in performing the Utsavam, proceedings in civil and criminal Courts had to be taken with the result that the suit land was laid waste and the Utsavam was not performed regularly. In O. S. No. 489 of 1919 the defendants adjusted their differences between themselves by a compromise to the exclusion o...
Kalluri Lakshminarayana Vs. Kalluri Punnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.134
1. In the village of Mopparu, Tenali Taluk, there is a Hindu temple dedicated to Sri Venugopalaswami. In the year 1892, the adoptive father of the plaintiff and 18 persons including the defendants endowed this temple with 4 acres 62 cents of land for the annual celebration of kalyana utsavam. The plaint alleges that the donors continued to manage this property and celebrated utsavam through the defendants till 1914 when the plaintiff was appointed to carry on the work. There were two factions in the village, one sup- porting the plaintiff and the other the first defendant; for sometime the relations between the plaintiff and the defendants were not amicable; but each was trying to exclude the other in performing the utsavam. Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Courts had to be taken with the result that the suit land was laid down waste and the utsavam was not performed regularly. In O.S. No. 489 of 1919 the defendants adjusted their differences between themselves by a compromise to the ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Volkart Bros., Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ443
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In both these appeals the Government is the appellant. There were two suites tried by the District Judge of South Malabar, one was a suit in ejectment by the Government and the other was a suit for specific performance by Messrs. Volkart Brothers. These two suits arose out of the same set of facts and the learned District Judge dismissed the Government's suit for possession and decreed the suit of Messrs. Volkart Bros for specific performance.2. By an Indenture, dated the 6th of June, 1821, between the United Company of Merchants in England trading in the East Indies on the one part and Mr. Francis Schuler of the other part, the said United Company granted a lease of land in British Cochin of the extent of four cawnies and odd for a period of 99 years to the said Mr. Schuler. The lease deed contains a clause for renewal which runs as follows: And also he, the said Mr. Francis Schuler, his heirs, administrators or assigns fulfilling the covenants and agreements co...
Moideen Meera Sahib Vs. Cruz Michael Fernando
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad536; 101Ind.Cas.436; (1927)52MLJ392
Curgenven, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been presented against the order of the District Munsif of Srivaikundam in O.P. No. 346 of 1925, which comprised an enquiry under the rules relating to election disputes. The election in question was to Ward No. 10 of the Union Board of Alwarthirunagari. There were three candidates, the petitioner, the respondent and one Alagapiran Aiyangar. Of the 35 voters, 29 cast their votes, 15 in favour of the present petitioner and 14 in favour of the respondent, the third candidate getting no vote at all. The petitioner was accordingly declared elected, whereupon the respondent filed this petition before the District Court objecting to the election. The learned District Judge issued summons to some of the witnesses, actually examined one witness and allowed certain documents to be filed and then transferred the case for disposal to the District Munsif of Srivaikundam. Some of the witnesses whom it was desired to examine were said to be absent in ...
The Corporation of Madras Vs. the Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd. and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad522; 101Ind.Cas.396; (1927)52MLJ474
Waller, J.1. These two appeals raise the same question. The appellant in both is the Municipal Corporation of Madras. The respondent in Appeal No. 8 of 1925 is the Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd and (the respondent) in Appeal No. 9 of 1925 is the Madras Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. Each of these bodies holds a license from the Government, empowering it to perform certain functions in the area of the City of Madras. The contention of the appellant is that further licenses have to be obtained by them from the Commissioner under Sections 287 and 288 of the Madras City Municipal Act. In Appeal No. 9, the respondent has erected a steam-boiler. Section 288 of the City Municipal Act, lays down that a steam-boiler must not be erected without the permission of the Commissioner, who has discretion under the conditions prescribed by Sub-section (2) to refuse it. In Appeal No. 8, the complaint of the appellant is that the respondent, is using certain premises for casting and beating metals, an...
Secretary of State for India Vs. Volkar Brother
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad513
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In both these appeals the Government is the appellant. There were two suits tried by the District Judge of South Malabar, one was a suit in ejectment by the Government and the other was a suit for specific performance by Messrs. Volkart Bros. These two suits arose out of the same set of facts and the learned District Judge dismissed the Government's suit for possession and decreed the suit of Messrs. Volkart Brothers for specific performance.2. By an indenture, dated the 6th of June, 1821, between the United Company of Merchants in England trading in the East Indies on the one part and Mr. Francis Schuler of the other part, the said United Company granted a lease of land in British Cochin of the extent of four cawnis and odd for a period of 99 years to the said Mr. Schuler. The lease deed contains a clause for renewal which runs as follows:And also he the said Mr. Francis Schuler, his heirs, administrators, or assigns fulfilling the covenants and agreements conta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »