Chennai Court January 1927 Judgments
Goli Paddayya and ors. Vs. Chaliki Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad653; 103Ind.Cas.331; (1927)52MLJ674
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the only question is whether the defendants who are twenty-five in number, owners of certain fields south of the plaintiffs' field No. 147 are entitled to use the track along the western portion of the plaintiffs' field for the purpose of taking their cattle, men and carts. In the shape in which the question was finally discussed by the Lower Courts the question was whether there was a customary right to such an easement. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge found in favour of the defendants. Before the Subordinate Judge the Munsif's finding was attacked on the ground that the custom pleaded was not reasonable and was not certain. He foundthat the extent of the land over which the plaintiffs would be compelled to give up their cultivation was very small.2. But if what he meant was that the width of the track was very small in comparison with the width of the field, he observed.at the most the track extended over only 1-2 to 3-4 of an acre.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasa Aiyyangar Vs. Ranga Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad524
Odgers, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura allowing a commission to issue for the examination of Defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. 41 of 1926 on his file. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, one S. Sreenivasa Iyyangar against these three defendants and others including the alleged adopted son of one Alaga Ayyangar, the 1st defendant being the widow of the said Alaga Iyengar, aged 35, the 3rd defendant, the mother of the said Alaga Iyengar aged 70, and the 4th defendant, the maternal aunt of the deceased Alaga Iyengar, aged 55. Now the suit is one for a declaration that a certain alleged will left by Alaga Iyyengar and the adoption of the 2nd defendant said to have been made by him or to him were invalid and had been brought about by the fraud of various persons, among them Defendants 1, 3 and 4. The learned District Jude on the application of the 2nd defendant has allowed a commission to issue for the examination of these female d...
Tag this Judgment!Pethaperumal Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad592; 102Ind.Cas.396; (1927)52MLJ670
1. For the purposes of this Letters Patent appeal, the facts may be briefly stated. The appellant in the Letters Patent appeal filed a suit in the Sub-Court of Ramnad (0. S. No. 108 of 1919) against the respondent to recover a sum of money due on a hundi and obtained a decree in the High Court in A.S. No. 361 of 1922. Afterwards a third party filed a second suit in the Subordinate Court of Devakottah (0. S. No. 46 of 1926) for a declaration that the appellant is not entitled to keep the amount in respect of which he obtained the former decree. He also applied for an injunction against the appellant restraining him from proceeding with the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 108 of 1919. The Subordinate Judge gave an injunction which, while permitting the appellant to execute the decree obtained by him, directed that the money realised in execution should be deposited in Court until further orders. This was on 15th April, 1926. Up to this stage, the respondent before us was not a party ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyamperumal Nadar and ors. Vs. Muthuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad687
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioners here are defendants in O. S. No. 626 of 1925 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thirumangalam and the respondent is plaintiff in that suit. Against this respondent the petitioners hold a small cause decree in a suit (S. C. S. No. 799 of 22) on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. In the former suit, the respondent obtained from the District Munsif an injunction restraining the petitioners from executing the small cause decree. The petitioners appealed against the grant of this injunction to the District Court, which held that no appeal lay. They have now presented this revision petition, contending that the learned District Judge erred in so dismissing their appeal.2. Confining ourselves first to the express provisions of the Civil P. C. the power to grant a temporary injunction is derived from Section 94, which permits of this course, 'if it is so prescribed.' Prescribed by the rules passed under the Code, and the ru...
Tag this Judgment!Abayambal Ammal Vs. T. K. Rajarathna Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1095
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The appeal is by defendant 4 and 5 and the only point for determination is as regards the validity of the adoption of the plaintiff's father by defendant, 1 to her husband in the year 1884. The fact that there was an adoption and that the requisite ceremonies were performed has not been questioned and the only ground on which the validity of the adoption has been sought to be attacked in appeal is that at the time of the adoption, the defendant 1 was only about 12i years, and, therefore, not capable of forming a proper judgment about the act of adoption with regard to her own interests and the estate. On the evidence adduced before the learned Judge in the Court below, he has come to the conclusion that she was a person fairly well educated even at that time and capable of forming an opinion with regard to the intended act on her own interests and with regard to her husband's estate. The adoption has been practically acquiesced in and treated as valid from that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.A. Razak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ620
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition against the conviction by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, of the petitioner for an offence under Section 357 of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919). The complaint made against him was that on or about the 10th January, 1926 he had a shed of inflammable materials in Moore Market compound without license from the Commissioner, contrary to Section 233. The learned Magistrate has recorded the plea of the accused as guilty and states that he explained at the same time that he had the shed of inflammable materials for the last 8 years without paying any fee to the Corporation. In view of this explanation it is impossible to conclude that the accused can have pleaded guilty to an offence which contained the factors required by Section 233. According to that provision no inflammable structure is to be constructed or reconstructed except with the permission of the Commissioner. The word used in the previous Act in lieu of '...
Tag this Judgment!U. Panduranga Bhatta Vs. M. Krishna Nayak and Sons by Partner M. Annap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ303
1. Appeal No. 211 of 1924.--I have come to the conclusion not without considerable reluctance that this appeal must be allowed. The case was brought on two promissory notes, one dated the 10th April and the other the 25th April, 1923 and there is no doubt that some of the defendants were previously engaged in the conduct of a motor bus concern known as the Kanara Transport Company. It seems to me clear that efforts were made which eventually succeeded to get the appellant Panduranga Bhatta into this business to set it on its feet because it was in or about the beginning of 1923 in a very bad way and owed money to several creditors of whom the plaintiff was one. The learned judge relied upon a document, Ex. IV as proving not merely that the appellant Panduranga Bhatta was a partner as and from its date as he had been before and that was to cover the promissory note of the 10th April. In my opinion the document when looked at clearly indicates that it was meant to speak as from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Vepery Kotilingam Mudaliar (Dead) and anr. Vs. the Board of Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ452
Curgenven, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition against an order of the District Judge of Nellore assessing the Court-Fee payable upon a petition under Section 80(2) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and allowing the petitioners a fortnight within which to pay it. The respondent raises the preliminary objection that an order of this nature is not subject to revision by this Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. It is indisputable that the Court had jurisdiction to assess Court-fee under Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act, and it appears to me to involve a confusion of thought to say that because an order which the Court had jurisdiction to pass resulted in the rejection of the application, therefore, assuming that the order was wrong it was passed without jurisdiction. But it is unnecessary for me to pursue this question, which I have recently dealt with in C.R.P. No. 451 of 1926, because I think that the petition must fail upon another ground. Section 115 requires that ...
Tag this Judgment!M. A. Razack Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad501
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition against the conviction by the 3rd Pesidency Magistrate, Madras, of the petitioner for an offence under S.357 of the Madras City Act 4 of 1919. The complaint made against him was thaton or about the 10th january 1926 he had a shed of inflammable materials in Moore market compound without license from the commissioner, contrary to s. 233.2. The learned Magistrate has recorded the plea of the accused as guilty and states that he explained at the same time that he had the shed of inflammable materials for the last eight years without paying any fee to the Corporation. In view of this explanation it is impossible to conclude that the accused can have pleaded guilty to an offence which contained the factors required by S.233. According to that provision no inflammable structure is to be constructed or reconstructed except with the permission of the Commissioner.3. The word used in the previous Act in lieu of 'constructed' was 'made' a...
Tag this Judgment!Josyam Parasuramayya Vs. Josyam Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad777; 103Ind.Cas.855
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This case unfortunately has been mishandled from start to finish and it comes up here after a sham fight about an issue upon which both parties concentrated themselves and which did not really ultimately go to the root of the dispute between the parties. I am quite aware of the danger of allowing people to start fresh cases at the last moment, but I cannot bear litigants to lose their rights by reason of misconceptions of their legal advisers in throwing the whole incidents of the case on to an immaterial issue.2. The facts here are very simple. The plaintiff was adopted invalidly somewhat about 1910 by the deceased defendant 1, who subsequently had an aurasa son born to him who is defendant 2 in these proceedings. The issue that ought to have been tried and has not been tried is whether the circumstances of the supposed adoption create an estoppel as against defendant 1, the natural father of defendant 2 and the adoptive father of the plaintiff. The facts appear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »