Chennai Court March 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.
Charukonda Keechappa Vs. Pujari Lakshmanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1160; 97Ind.Cas.349
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is against an order of the District Judge of Anantapur refusing to permit the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis. The suit was for a declaration that the alleged Will of his maternal grandfather was not genuine. The plaintiff is described in the plaint as aged 18. The District Judge has found that the petitioner is able to pay the Court-fee on his plaint and has already expressed an opinion on the merits of the case that there was a former litigation started by his grandmother and that the judgment in that suit bars the present suit as res judicata, and even if it is not res judicata, the petitioner has not got any subsisting prima facie cause of action He relies on Amirtham v. Alwar Manikkam [1904] 27 Mad. 37, The plaintiff has filed this petition.2. Two points have been argued before me. The first is that the District Judge is wrong in going into the merits of the plaintiff's case as disclosed in the plaint. The decision in Amirtham v. Alwar Manik...
Madini Doraisami Naidu Vs. Syed Mier HussaIn Sahib Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.767
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. He filed a suit before the Deputy Collector of Chittoor under Section 46 of the Estates Land Act and he seeks to get a royti patta for survey No. 67 in the Atmakur village attached to Naragan tipalayam Zamin. The 1st defendant is the proprietor.2. The history of the holding seems to be that an old tenant who cultivated it abandoned it about 15 years before suit and afterwards it was cultivated off and on by others. Apparently it was left vacant at the end of fasli 1330, i.e., 30th June 1921. On 4th July, 1921, a cousin of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant, made an application for being admitted to the land. It was favourably received by the proprietor and an order was issued in favour of the 2nd defendant that he should be admitted as a ryot to survey No. 67 to the extent of 1 cawny, 6 cents for a rent of Rs. 6 0-3 and the 2nd defendant was authorised to enter upon the land. The plaintiff applied for the same land on 31st July allegin...
H. Bemasena Rao Vs. H. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad459
Ramesam, J. 1. The respondent is not represented. But I am satisfied that the judgment cannot stand. In the first place if the plaintiff is the owner of the land concerned then he is interested in paying the amount and under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act he is entitled to a decree. On this matter, the District Munsif narrates the facts that the plaintiff's pleader stated that though Ex. I decided the point against plaintiff, there was afterwards a later compromise by which the defendant and his brother conceded the plaintiff's title and the defendant even brought a suit to set aside the compromise decree. If the defendant failed in that suit, the compromise decree stands and the plaintiff's title is established. The District Munsif is not correct in saying that the title cannot be decided in this suit. Though it cannot be fully decided in a Small Cause suit it can be decided incidentally for the purpose of deciding the chief point in the case which is properly within the jurisd...
(Thommil Pudia Malikkal) Kathyumma Vs. Thommil Pudia Malikkal Muhammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1083; 97Ind.Cas.545
Ramesam, J.1. I think the order of the District Judge is not sustainable. The District Munsif passed an order directing the review of the original judgment in the case on the ground that there was 'an accidental slip' in the decree. A review petition on the ground of an accidental slip is entertainable before the successor of the Judge who disposed of the case (Order 47, Rule 2). Only if the ground is other than accidental slip or discovery of fresh evidence such petition cannot be entertained by a successor. Hence, in this case, the order of the District Munsif who purports to act on the ground of 'accidental slip' does not contravene the provisions of Order 47, Rule 2 and, therefore, the District Judge cannot revise the order of the District Munsif on this ground: see Meduru Brahmayya v. Vedula Yellamma [1916] 4 L.W. 408. The correctness of the Munsif's conclusion that there was an accidental slip is not a point that can be considered by the appellate Court. The District Judge has ac...
The Municipal Council, Constituted Under the District Municipalities A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1187; (1927)52MLJ360
Phillips, J.1. The learned Judge has held that the respondent's firm are not liable to pay the professional tax under the Madras District Municipalities Act except at their principal place of business. The section which imposes the tax is Section 93, and reading that section by itself it would seem to include all places of business in which the firm carries on trade. That this is not so is clear from Clause 3 of the same section which shows that if a tax is paid in one Municipality that amount may be deducted from the Income-tax that may fall due in another and we have further the provision under Rule 18 of Schedule IV which states what persons shall be deemed to have exercised a profession or trade or calling, and there it is distinctly laid down that he shall be deemed to have exercised a profession, art, trade, or calling, if his principal office or place of employment is within the Municipality. The argument that the word 'principal' only qualifies 'offices' and not 'place of emplo...
Varadaraja Iyer Vs. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad378
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit to recover from the defendant the waram payable by him to the plaintiff for having cultivated the plaintiff's land. The original plaint relied upon an unstamped written promise to pay amounting to a promissory note, dated the 13th June 1918, and the suit was filed on the 13th June 1921. This District Munsif held that the document was inadmissible in evidence and dismissed the suit. On revision, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint by falling back on the original obligation and remanded the suit. The petitioner then applied for permission to amend his plaint by mentioning an oral agreement on the 13th June 1918, but the Subordinate Judge has rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that there was no separate oral agreement on the 13th June apart from the written note and that if the plaintiff falls back on the original cause of action, the lease, the suit would be barred.2. I think the plaintiff has b...
Chengalvala Venkata Siva Rao Vs. Idarapalli Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad953; 97Ind.Cas.893
Devadoss, J.1. The only point; urged in this second appeal is that the defendant was appointed to a new office and that the plaintiff who has the preferential right to it is entitled to claim it. From the proceedings it is clear that the Collector directed one of the officers to be dispensed with and the other to be retained. This proceeding of the Collector was under the Proprietary Village Service Act of 1894. In accordance with the direction of the Collector the landholder acting under Section 15(2) dispensed with the services of one and retained the services of the other. It cannot be said that the person who was retained in office was newly appointed to that office. He having been retained in the office the plaintiff has no right to the office by virtue of any hereditary right. The point has been properly decided by the lower Courts and there is no reason to interfere with the decree of the Suborinate Judge of Rajahmundry.2. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with cos...
Parvathi Auchi and anr. Vs. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad988
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the lower appellate Court should have allowed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint. The lower appellate Court held that the appellants were not entitled to any indulgence as they failed to apply to the first Court notwithstanding the contention raised by the respondents that the plaintiffs were not in, possession of the property in dispute. The suit as framed was one for the issue of a permanent injunction. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the suit for injunction was not maintainable and an issue was specifically raised in the first Court and was tried, and the Court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property. The plaintiffs could have asked the first Court to allow them to amend the plaint by asking for possession and they failed to do so. The contention of Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar for the appellants is that another suit was filed f...
Parvathi Achi and ors. Vs. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.727
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the lower Appellate Court should have allowed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint. The lower Appellate Court held that the appellants were not entitled to any indulgence as they failed to apply to the first Court notwithstanding the contention raised by the respondents that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property in dispute. The suit as framed was one for the issue of a permanent injunction. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the suit for injunction was not maintainable and an issue was specifically raised in the first Court and was tried, and the Court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property. The plaintiffs could have asked the first Court to allow them to amend the plaint by asking for possession and they failed to do so. The contention of Mr. Venkatarama Iyer for the appellants is that another suit was filed for...
Ramaswami Chettiar by His Agent Natesa Pillai Vs. Kathamuthu thevar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.70
Devadoss, J.1. The question before-the lower Court was whether the alleged partition among the members of a joint Hindu family was in fraud of creditors. The learned Judge observes in para, 2 of his judgment that a partition is not a-transfer within the meaning of the Act. This is opposed to the decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to one decision reported as Rasa Goundan v. Arunachella Goundan 72 Ind. Cas. 978: (1923) M.W.N. 320: A.I.R 1923 Mad. 577 where it was held that 'A partition among the members of adjoint Hindu family is a transfer to which the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act would be applicable.' The learned Judge's observations on the question of fact are evidently coloured by his view of the law and I, therefore, set aside his judgment and direct the District Judge to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law. Costs of this appeal will abide the result. The appellant will be entitled to a refund of the Court-fee....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »