Chennai Court May 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.
Korlapati Thammayya Alias Bulli Abbayi of Korlapativaripalam Vs. Medid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1161; (1926)51MLJ475
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is, is the plaintiff entitled to redeem the suit property? In order to understand the contention a few facts are necessary. The 2nd defendant was an abkari contractor and defaulted to pay the amount due to Government. A demand notice was served on him on 27th May, 1917 followed by a sale notice on 3rd July, 1917 and the sale of the suit property by the Revenue authorities was held on 10th August, 1917 and was purchased by the plaintiff. The suit property was at the time of the sale under a mortgage in favour of the 3rd defendant. He filed a suit on 13th July, 1917, obtained a mortgage decree and brought the mortgage property to sale on 4th March, 1919. The property was purchased by the 1st defendant herein. There were criminal proceedings between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the plaintiff has brought this suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that he is entitled to it and in the alternative he prays for redem...
Ry. Pratapa Simha Raja Saheb Vs. Ry. Simji Raja Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad50; (1926)51MLJ652
Spencer, J.1. Sivaji, the last Rajah of Tanjore, died in 1855 leaving 16 Ranees, two legitimate daughters, a mother, 40 sword wives and 17 children by these sword wives, six of them being males. On the death of Sivaji, the Government took possession of all his properties. The estate was restored to the senior surviving Ranee on the 21st August, 1862. On the 19th of March, 1863, the Government made over the Devasthanams to the senior widow in proceedings exhibited as Ex. 1 in these words:It is desirable that the connection of Government with the pagodas should cease, and they will accordingly be made over to Her Highness Kamak-shi Bai Saheba.2. On the death of Kamakshi Bai Saheba, the Government again took possession of the Devasthanams and put them in charge of the Devasthanam Committee of the Tanjore District. Upon this, Umamba Bai Saheba, who was then the senior surviving widow, brought a suit which ended in her favour. The judgment of the High Court in appeal Is reported in Kaliaita...
Kaile Lakshmayya and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad129
ORDERWallace, J.1. The main point taken is that the Magistrate having issued process under Section 257, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to certain witnesses who had been already examined as prosecution witnesses and were evidently cited as defence witnesses for the purpose of further cross examination was not entitled in law to refuse to allow the accused to cross-examine them. As the Magistrate issued process I must take it that he did not consider that the application to summon those witnesses was vexatious. He may have refused cross-examination on the ground that the defence could not cross-examine witnesses summoned by the accused, but that is not clear.2. Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows an accused to summon witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination and I.do not read it as meaning that the accused must necessarily state in his application for process whether he wants the witnesses for examination or for cross-examination. It is for the Magistrate to enqu...
Maganti Veerabhadrayya Vs. Sree Rajah Bommadevara Naganna Nayudu Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ38
Krishnan, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment my learned brother has prepared in this case. The main question is whether at the time the defendant was put in possession of the lands they were ryoti lands or the private or kamatam lands of the Zamindar. The 1st defendant's claim to permanent right of occupancy in them is based on Clause 1, Section 6 of the Estates Land Act and for that clause to apply the land.must be a 'ryoti land not being old waste'. Private land is excluded from ryoti land by its definition in Section 3, Clause (16). It is argued that though these lands were, prior to 1877 or 188o? such as would have fallen within the definition of ryoti lands under the Act they had been effectively converted into kamatam lands before the Act was passed. My learned brother has dealt with this question exhaustively and as I agree with him I do not propose to go over the same ground. In this connection it was argued by the learned vakil for the appellant that the eff...
Govindaswami Naidu Vs. Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad295; (1926)51MLJ747
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This suit arises out of an application for probate of a will alleged to have been left by one Ramakrishna Naidu who died on the 31st of January, 1925. The petitionor is the father of the testator and claims to be executor under the will. The defendant is the widow of Ramakrishna Naidu and she opposes the grant. She states that she was not aware that her husband left any will, that her husband was at the time of the alleged execution of the will an inpatient in the Surgical Ward in the General Hospital, that the will even if executed is invalid and inoperative, that the petitioner for probate and his wife were always inimical towards her and her children, that they exercised undue influence over her husband, that she and her husband were living a happy married life and that it is extremely unlikely that her husband would have voluntarily deprived her of the guardianship and custody of her five minor children and cut her off with a maintenance of Rs. 7 a month.2....
Ajagar Hazar Saheb and ors. Vs. Chedalavada Annammah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad572
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised by Mr. Chenchiah for the appellants is that the plaintiff had parted with her right to the property under Ex. II and, therefore, she had no right to bring the suit. This point was not specifically raised in the first Court but was raised in a way in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned District Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to raise this point in appeal as they did not put forward this case in the lower Court. The defendants did not rely upon want of title in the plaintiff in their defence to the suit. During the examination of the witnesses this point was brought out and the plaintiff was asked whether she had executed Ex. II to which she replied she did and that it did not take effect. It is not proper for the appellants now to raise this contention at this stage, for that would depend upon facts which should have been proved in the Court of first instance. Granting that Ex. II was executed by the pla...
Krishna Aiyar Vs. Ponnappa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1060
Spencer, J.1. The 1st defendant agreed, on the 26th September 1919, to supply timber; and as a pledge for the due performance of his contract, and for repayment of Rs. 5,000 advanced to him he mortgaged certain property. Ex. A is the mortgage document. It describes itself as a karar or agreement and was stamped at first with an eight annas stamp. After it was presented for registration the deficient stamp duty and a penalty was collected and it was registered as a mortgage. The plaintiff sued upon this document and got a personal decree against the 1st defendant for Rs. 649 and a mortgage decree for the balance. The second defendant who appeals is a simple mortgagee Under another document which is Ex. I.2. The point taken in appeal is that Ex. A regarded as a mortgage is defective as regards attestation because the attestors signed at the end of the document after the executant had signed and afterwards (apparently at the time of presentation for registration) the survey numbers of the...
Krishna Iyer Vs. Ponappa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.676
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The 1st defendant agreed on the 26th September, 1919, to supply timber and as a pledge for the due performance of his contract and for repayment of Rs. 5,000 advanced to him, he mortgaged certain property. Exhibit A is the mortgage document. It describes itself as a karat or agreement and was stamped at first with an eight annas stamp. After it was presented for registration, the deficient stamp duty and a penalty was collected and it was registered as a mortgage. The plaintiff sued upon this document and got a personal decree against the 1st defendant for Rs. 649 and a mortgage-decree for the balance. The 2nd defendant who appealsis a simple mortgagee under another document which is Ex. I. The point taken in appeal is that Ex. A regarded as a mortgage is defective as regards attestation because the attestors signed at the end of the document after the executant had signed and afterwards (apparently at the time of presentation for registration) the survey n...
Maddur Krishnammal Vs. Collector of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad282
Ramesam, J.1. These two petitions arise out of the same matter. It would be convenient to set out the facts. The Taluk Board of Kollegal applied for the acquisition of some sites for public purposes. Land acquisition proceedings were taken under the Act and an award passed on the 16th February 1923. Notices of the [missing text]ward were duly served on the parties, but they did not appear on that date. We are now concerned only with one of those parties. The parties, including the present petitioners, put in petitions objecting to the amounts of compensation. This is the statement made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his letter dated the 26th February 1923. The letter gives further information about the proper values of the three sites and the second site is the site of the petitioner. I, therefore, infer that the petitioner also sent petitions. like the others when the letter of the 26th February 1923 was received by the District Judge. He returned it to the Revenue Divisional Of...
(Pamur) Atchi Reddi and ors. Vs. Nelaturu Venkata Rangacharlu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1140
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge which directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. The suit instituted by these plaintiffs was for the establishment of occupancy rights in their various holdings which they claimed against the Shrotriamdar. The Subordinate Judge holding that the cause of action of each plaintiff was distinct and also that there were special causes of action in which all the plaintiffs were not interested thought it would be more convenient if the plaintiffs were called upon to amend the plaint and therefore made an order to that effect. That order has also been acted upon to a certain extent by the 9th plaintiff. The vakil appearing for all the plaintiffs put in an application stating that in obedience to the order of the Court he was prepared to confine the plaint to the 9th plaintiff alone, and, accordingly the plaint was amended.2. It is now argued that the order of the lower C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›