Chennai Court February 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.
(Kolluru) Venkataratnam Vs. Pusapati Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad754
Wallace, J.1. The amendment of the plaint was called for because the basis of plaintiff's right to sue had been jeopardized by a decision in another suit that a similar endorsement on a similar promissory-note was a forgery. This decision was passed after the plaint in this suit was filed and the application for amendment of the plaint was put in promptly. The amendment if allowed merely gives plaintiff another 'string to her bow' in respect of her claim that the original liability of defendant under the suit nota to Nagayya has now passed into a liability to herself. Defendant does not seem to plead that he is not liable under the note, provided the suit is in time. In these circumstances the ruling in Naba Kumar Chowdhury v. Higheazany : AIR1925Cal419 cited by the lower Court is in point and the amendment doss not affect defendant's liability to pay though there is a change in the manner in which plaintiff claims the debt.2. In the circumstances I am not prepared to hold that the low...
Raja Ganpatiraju Vs. Pogaru Ramamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1045
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of Survey No. 339 and another land of Laveru village in the Zamindari of Vizayanagaram and they made, the trustee of the Vizayanagaram estate, the 1st defendant and the tenants in occupation of S. No. 339, Defendants 2 to 12. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit against Defendants 2 to 12 on the ground that they had acquired an occupancy right on the coming into force of the Midras Estates Land Act and he, also rejected the plaintiff's claim to recover possession of S. No. 339 as against the 1st defendant, but he gave them a declaration that they are entitled to the melwaram of landholder's right in this survey number as against the 1st defendant and a decree for recovery of rent for 3 years prior to suit. In appeal the District Judge confirmed the decree of the lower Court.2. The plaintiffs' alleged in their plaint that about 1820 A.D. which was 'after the Permanent Settlement, the suit land was granted by the villagers of La...
Sri Rajah Mirza Sri Pushavati Alaka Narayana Gajapathiraju Maharaja Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.842
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of Survey No. 33a and another land of Laveru village in the zemindari of Vizianagaram and they made the trustee of the Vizianagaram estate, the first defendant and the tenants in occupation of Survey No. 339, defendants Nos. 2 to 12. The Subordinate Judge dismissed that suit against defendants . Nos., 2 to 12 on the ground that they had acquired an occupancy right on the coming into force of the Madras Estates Land Act, and he also rejected the plaintiffs' claim to recover possession of Surrey No. 339 as against the first defendant, but he gave them a declaration that they are entitled to the melvaram of landholder's right in the survey number as against the first defendant and a decree for recovery of rent for three years prior to suit. In appeal the District Judge confirmed the decree of the lower Court.2. The plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that about 1820 A. D. which was after the Permanent Settlement, the su...
Kolluru Venkataratnam Vs. Pusapati Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.267
1. The amendment of the plaint was called for because the basis of plaintiff's right to sue had been jeopardised by a decision in another suit that a similar endorsement on a similar pro-note was a forgery. This decision was passed after the plaint in this suit was filed and the application for amendment of the plaint was put in promptly. The amendment if allowed merely gives plaintiff another 'string to her bow,' in respect of her claim that the original liability of defendant under the suit note to Nagayya has now passed into a liability to herself. Defendant doe3 not seem to plead that he is not liable under the note, provided the suit is in time. In these circumstances the ruling in Naba Kumar Choudhury v. Higheazany : AIR1925Cal419 cited by the lower Court is in paint and the amendment does not affect defendant's liability to pay though there is a change in the manner in which plaintiff claims the debt.2. In the circumstances lam not prepared to hold that the lower Court has acted...
Narayanaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Rangaswami Naidu Add ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad749; 95Ind.Cas.731; (1926)50MLJ547
1. A. Razinamah decree was passed on 22nd October, 1914 in O.S. No. 11 of 1913 in which it was provided that in case the 1st defendant or the 4th defendant were to pay to the decree-holders Rs. 17,000 within two years the property should be reconveyed to the 1st defendant, but if default be made in such payments the decree-holders themselves should enjoy the properties with absolute rights. The plaintiff-decree-holders entered into an agreement on 19th April, 1916 with the 2nd defendant whereby they relinquished their interest in the property for Rs. 7,000. The 2nd plaintiff applied to the Lower Court for execution of the decree. The learned District Judge held that the decree had been adjusted by the arrangement of 1st April, 1916, evidenced by Exs. A and B and that the 2nd plaintiff was not entitled to execute the decree. He also held that the 2nd plaintiff released his right to the property by another document, Ex. E. dated 15th July, 1922. Against his order plaintiffs 2 to 4 have p...
Kandaswami Udayan Vs. Velayutha Udayan (Minor) by Next Friend and Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad774; (1926)51MLJ99
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a certain alienation made by his father was not binding on him and prayed for possession of the property alienated and in the alternative that if the sale was good to the extent of his father's share, his share of the property should be delivered to him. The District Munsif held that the sale was a nominal transaction and that it was not binding upon the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal the District Judge held that the sale was good to the extent of the father's share and decreed the plaintiff's share to him.2. In Second Appeal it was contended that the alienee should be allotted the property alienated to him as there was other property belonging to the family which could satisfy the claim of the plaintiff. Mr. Justice, Odgers who heard the Second Appeal declined to uphold the contention and dismissed the Second Appeal. The alienee's representatives have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.3. It is contended before us b...
Thondiyil Puthalath Ukkaran Nayar Vs. Thondiyil Ponnigari Ukkaran Naya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad633; 94Ind.Cas.1046; (1926)51MLJ159
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this petition is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the case as the relief which could be granted to the plaintiff is not a relief which a Small Cause Court is empowered to give, viz., mortgage decree. The argument is that the defendant who is in possession of property is liable to pay the tax on the property and when the pattadar pays the tax, he can only have a remedy against the land in the same way as the Government would be entitled to proceed against it, and the defendant not being a pattadar, Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act (Madras) II of 1864 has no application to him.This point was not raised before the District Munsif. His contention there was that the suit was not maintainable not on the ground that the Small Cause Court could not give a mortgage decree against the defendant but on the ground that patta had not been transferred to the defendant and therefore he was not liable to pay the revenue. The point not ha...
Municipal Council, Rajahmundry Vs. Nidamaru Jaladurga Prasadarayudu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad800; (1926)50MLJ556
Devadoss, J.1. C.R.P. No. 375 of 1924: This is an application to revise the order of the Principal District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The petitioner is the Municipal Council of Rajahmundry. The respondent was assessed to profession tas and he brought a suit for the recovery of the amount collected from him on the ground that the collection was illegal. The main contention in the case is whether the Municipal Council published a notification as required by Section 80 of the District Municipalities Act. Under that S. when a Municipal Council shall have determined under the provisions of Sections 78 and 79 to levy any tax or toll for the first time or at a new rate, the Chairman shall forthwith publish a notification in the District Gazette and by beat of drum specifying the rate at which the tax or toll shall be levied from a date to be specified in the notification. The notification published by the Municipal Council on' the 16th October, 1920 was to the following effect:This (i.e. profess...
K. Doraiswami Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad946; 95Ind.Cas.446; (1926)51MLJ130
1. Rule 26, Order 3 of the Insolvency Rules runs as follows:If an order of adjudication is made without service of the petition, the debtor may, within 8 days after service of the order, or such further time as may be allowed by the Court, apply by notice of motion supported by affidavit to annul the order.2. In this case no notice of the order of adjudication was given to the insolvent at all.This application was not made within eight days, nor was any question raised as to allowing him further time. The learned Judge has held that the insolvent, who knew all about the adjudication, must be taken as a person who had in effect had service of the order. We do not think that that is a construction of the rule which can be supported. Had it been so intended words such as 'or after the order had been brought to his knowledge' after 'service of the order' could easily have been added, and no such words are found. We therefore order that the case be remanded and dealt with on the merits. The...
Arukapalli Narasimha Rao and anr. Vs. Arumilli Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ135
1. A.A. A.O. No. 17 of 1925 : This is an appeal against the appellate order of the Subordinate Judge directing the sale of mortgage property in a certain particular order. By this order he altered the order of the District Munsif who had directed the property to be sold in a different order. The first contention raised in this second appeal is that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge as the District Munsif's order was one passed under Order 21, Rule 66. This rule corresponds to Section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 and it was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Sivagami Achi v. Subramania Aiyar 14 M.L.J. 57 (F.B.) that proceedings under that section are of an administrative and not a judicial character and that therefore no appeal would lie from a decision thereunder. The facts concerned in that reference and the Full Bench agreed in the reasons given in the order of reference were that orders had been passed fixing the market value of the property, the place of sale, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »