Chennai Court August 1926 Judgments
K.R. Muthu A.R. Arunachalam Chetty Vs. David, Esq., the Official Recei ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ671
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit was for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him and defendants 3 and 4 and for a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, who was the Official Receiver of the Ramnad District, from selling them as the properties of the 2nd defendant in I.P. No. 9 of 1917 on his file. The Official Receiver advertised the suit properties for sale on 10th November, 1924. On the 5th November the plaintiff sent a notice of suit to the 1st defendant and the suit was filed on the 7th November, 1924. The Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dismissed the suit on the ground that two months have not elapsed before the filing of the suit and after the giving of notice. The plaintiff in appeal contends that a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, is unnecessary. He concedes that the Official Receiver is a public servant but argues that the suit is not in respect of an act purporting to be done in his official capacity. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Subban Chettiar Vs. Rangan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad173; (1926)51MLJ706
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in O.S. No. 80 of 1921 on his file. The suit was for the redemption of a mortgage in favour of the defendants. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as premature and the plaintiff is the appellant before us. It would seem that the owner of the plaint properties, one Zamindar of Neduvasal, mortgaged the property first to one Oppillamani Chetti and others for a sum of Rs. 11,000. Under that document Oppillamani Chetti was to enjoy the property for a period of 12 years and he Was redeemable in the year 1911, 30th June. In June, 1901 the same Zamindar gave a second mortgage to defendants 1 and 2. The covenant with them was that they should redeem the first mortgagee after its period was over and take possession of the property and enjoy it for a period of 10 years from the 30th June 1911, till 30th June, 1921. The Zamindar again gave a third mortgage of the same property to the plaintiff before us on...
Tag this Judgment!Zamindar of Bodokimidy Vs. Budankayala Bhimayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad76
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Zamindar of Peddakimidi to establish his right to a tamarind tope in a village within the Zamindari. The first and principal defendant was impleaded because he alleged that he had bought the occupancy rights of the ryots and therewith the right to the trees on the jirayati lands. No evidence of this sale having been adduced in the trial Court,the learned District Munsif held that the defendants must be treated as mere trespassers unentitled to avail themselves of the provisions of Section 12 of the Madras Estates Land Act. Even if they were so entitled (he continued) there was sufficient evidence to show that when the inam village, as it formely was, was resumed in 1890 and re-granted as jirayati, the right to the trees was not granted to the ryots. He accordingly decreed the claim.2. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge although holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, proceeded to disp...
Tag this Judgment!Yandru Veeranna and anr. Vs. Yandru Sitamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad83
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this Second Appeal is that the share of the son of the plaintiff alone is chargeable with plaintiff's maintenance and the shares of her stepsons are not so chargeable as there was a bona fide division after the death of the defendant's father, and reliance is placed upon Hemangini Dasi v. Kundu Chowdry [1889] 16 Cal. 758 for the contention. That case was under the Dayabaga Law and so far as our High Court is concerned we have a series of decisions to the effect that the share of all the sons is liable for the maintenance of the mother. If the sons divide the family property after the death of the father they must make provision for the maintenance of the mother and for the maintenance of any widows of the family. If they do not do so the question is not whether there was a bona fide division of the property or not but what provision should be made for the maintenance of the mother and the widows in the family. The whole of the family proparty wo...
Tag this Judgment!Pakkiri Mahomed Rowther Vs. Bava Moideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad82
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, a member of a Mahomedan family, for a declaration that certain alienations made by his mother, the 1st defendant, are not binding on him and for partition of the property thus alienated and other family property and the recovery of his seventwelfths share. The plaintiff compromised with all the alienees except the 11th defendant who acquired a portion of the property from the mother's vendee, the 12th defendant. The 11th defendant preferred an appeal, contending in the first place that the sale was binding on the plaintiff and, if that was to be held against, asking that the equities should be so adjusted in the partition that he should get the whole item purchased.2. The learned Subordinate Judge after upholding the District Munsif's decision on the first point has found himself unable to accede to the latter course, the reason which he gives being that, unlike undivided coparceners of a Hindu family, Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Bhatta Vs. Ayyappa Gowda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad151
Wallace, J.1. This petition is put in by a purchaser after Court sale requesting this Court to revise the order of the lower Court refusing to set aside the Court sale. The property sold was the property of a minor, Ayyappa Gowda, and one Changappa Gowda. It was sold in execution of a decree obtained by Dasappa Banta. After the sale the judgment-debtors and the petitioner who had purchased from them moved under Order 21, Rule 89 to have the sale set aside the minor being represented by his mother as guardian, and the requisite amount was deposited by the present petitioner. Subsequently the judgment-debtors withdrew their application. The District Munsif held that it could not be maintained by the petitioner-purchaser alone and that he had no locus standi in the petition after the judgment-debtors have withdrawn and so he dismissed the petition. It is urged for the petitioner that the District Munsif erred in law, first, in not considering whether the withdrawal was for the benefit of ...
Tag this Judgment!(Sanampudi) Venkayya and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad207
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiffs are proprietors of a shrotriem inam or kandriga forming a portion of the Kanupur village, Nellore District. A jungle stream called the Surepalli Vagu, which rises in a shrotriem village to the west of the plaintiff's property, enters the kandriga and the plaintiffs have been in the habit of using it for irrigation purposes. Government served them with a notice under Madras Act 7 of 1865 that they were liable to pay water cess in respect of the unauthorized use of the water of this stream. The plaintiffs therefore filed this suit for a declaration of their right to make use of the water without the payment of water cess. The Additional District Munsif of Nellore granted the relief prayed for on finding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the stream. The learned Subordinate Judge has reversed this decree and dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs now file this second appeal.2. The question in issue has to be decided according as it is found that the bed of...
Tag this Judgment!Pattrachariar Vs. Alamelumangai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad273
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who now prefers this second appeal, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 3,032-13-3 from the assets of one Srinivasachari, making his widow, the defendant, in the following circumstances. Srinivasachari's father, of the same name, whom we may refer to as Srinivasachari senior, bequeathed the plaint-property to his daughter Kuttiammal under a Will. With a view to dispute this bequest, Srinivasachari junior sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000. In 1912 the plaintiff sued for possession making Srinivasachari senior's children as well as certain lessees, parties. Srinivasachari junior raised the defence that the sale-deed was nominal and unsupported by consideration while Kuttiammal, besides advancing this plea (which it was not open to her to do) pleaded the validity of the bequest., The District Munsif found against both these pleas and gave the plaintiff a decree for Srinivasachari junior's half share (there being another brother). Against this decisio...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Keshava Rao and ors. Vs. Nathravati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad200
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O.S. No. 60 of 1920 on his file. The suit was to recover certain moveable and immovable properties, for an account of the management of the plaint mentioned trust and for damages. Defendant 1 is the person against whom the claim was mainly made. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and hence the appeal to us by the plaintiff.2. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought in connexion with a family trust created by the members of the family in the year 1867, under a registered document Ex. A. Under that document, they set apart the plaint properties for the performance of certain viniyogas mentioned in the document and of certain ceremonies in connexion with the newly consecrated idol of Krishna Devaru, the family god. It was provided in that document, which was a document executed by four members who had acquired the properties themselves, that they and their descendants should pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pattarachariar Vs. Alamelumangaiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.40
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who now prefers this second appeal, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 3,032-13-3 from the assets of one Srinivasachari, making his widow the defendant, in the following circumstances. Srinivasachari's father, of the same name whom we may refer to as Srinivasachari senior, bequeathed the plaint property to his daughter Kuttiammal under a Will. With a view to dispute this bequest, Srinivasachari junior sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000. In 1912, the plaintiff sued for possession, making Srinivasachari senior's children as well as certain lessees, parties. Srinivasachari junior raised the defence that the sale-deed was nominal and unsupported by consideration, while Kuttiammal, besides advancing this plea (which it was not open to her to do) pleaded the validity of the bequest. The District Munsif found against both these pleas and gave the plaintiff a decree for Srinivasachari junior's half share (there being another brother), Against this decisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »