Chennai Court January 1927 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.
K.S. Natesa Aiyar Vs. Sahasranama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad773; (1927)53MLJ550
Ramesam, J.1. I would state the facts of this case fully as I am not satisfied with the treatment of the case by the Lower Courts. Defendant was the stakeholder of a chit fund, and, for the due performance of his obligations in connection with the chit transactions, he executed a kootchit deed, dated 23rd March, 1914, mortgaging two items of his property. In item 2 he had originally an ancestral property only 47 cents, but the other 47 cents, which at first belonged to his brother Kuppuswami Aiyar, were purchased in 1910 by a sale-deed, Ex. I (a) and the sale-deed stands in the name of defendant 2, son of defendant 1, being minor by his mother as guardian. Thus in 1914 he was in possession of 94 cents of this item and this was mortgaged by Ex. A. The plaintiff is one of the subscribers to the chit and he bid at one of the auctions in 1918, by which he became entitled to the suit amount. He, therefore, brings the suit to recover the amount by sale of the property mortgaged under Ex. A. ...
Yarlagadda Pakeerayya and ors. Vs. Puligadda Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad791
Curgenven, J.1. The arrangement between the plaintiff and his sub-lessee the defendant was that the latter should pay rent to the superior landlord, obtain a receipt from him and deliver it to the plaintiff. In the suit now under second appeal the plaintiff sued for damages in respect of the non-payment of rent in this manner for faslis, 1326, 1327 and 1328. He had brought a previous suit against the defendant, the plaint being dated 27th April 1918, for similar relief in respect of faslis 1324 and 1325. The point now raised is that inasmuch as by the date on which that suit was filed the rent for faslis 1326 and 1327 had already accrued, he is debarred by the terms of Order 2, Rule 2, from including these claims in the present suit. For a decision upon this point we have to consider the agreement, Ex. A. A construction is put forward which was not offered before the lower Courts and which in consequence I cannot accept. It is that the document not only makes the payment to the superio...
K.S. Natesa Iyer Vs. Sahasranama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.814
Ramesam, J.1. I would state the facts of this case fully as I am not satisfied with the treatment of the case by the lower Courts. The 1st defendant was the stakeholder of a chit fund and for the due performance of his obligations in connection with the chit transactions, he executed a kootchit deed, dated 23rd March, 1914. mortgaging two items of his property. In item No. 2 he had had originally an ancestral property only 47 cents, but the other 47 cents which at first belonged to his brother Kuppusami Iyer were purchased in 1910 by a sale-deed, (Ex. 1-A) and the sale-deed stands in the name of the 2nd defendant son of the 1st defendant, being a minor by his mother as guardian. Thus in 1914 he was in possession of 94 cents of this item and this was mortgaged by Ex. A. The plaintiff is one of the subscribers to the chit and he bid at one of the auctions in 1918 by which he became entitled to the suit amount. He, therefore, brings the suit to recover the amount by sale of the property m...
Yarlagada Pakeerayya and ors. Vs. Puligadda Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.74
Curgenven, J.1. The arrangement between the plaintiff and his sub-lessee the defendant was that the latter should pay rent to the superior landlord, obtain a receipt from him and deliver it to the plaintiff. In the suit now under second appeal, the plaintiff sued for damages in respect of the non-payment of rent in this manner for Faslis 1326, 1327 and 1328. He had brought a previous suit against the defend ant, the plaint being dated 27th April, 1918, for similar relief in respect of Faslis 1324 and 1325. The point now raised is that inasmuch as by the date on which that suit was filed the rent for Faslis 1326 and 1327 had already accrued he is debarred by the terms of Order II, Rule 2 from including these claims in the present suit. For a decision upon this point we have to consider the agreement, Ex. A. A construction is put forward which was not offered before the lower Courts and which on consideration I cannot accept. It is that the document not only makes the payment to the supe...
Krishna Mahanty Vs. Gangadhara Padhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad670; 103Ind.Cas.120; (1927)52MLJ706
Wallace, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by respondents that no Second Appeal lies as the suits are of a Small Cause nature. Plaintiff in fact filed the suits in the Small Cause Court, and they were transferred to the Original Side as some question of title was involved. He now, having lost the suits in both Courts, claims that a second appeal lies.2. The suits are for what is called 'choutayi' dues from defendants. This is a payment of the nature of 'jodi' as is set out in the Inam Register, Ex. I. Plaintiff corresponds to 'the 1st in Col. 16' in that document and defendants to the rest. The latter have to pay one-fourth of the gross produce as jodi to plaintiff. The question is whether this jodi comes within Article 13 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In Venkatagiri Rajah v. Rau ILR (1897) M 243 it was held by this Court that jodi is not a Cess or due as set out in that article, but is rent on favourable terms. Plaintiff contends that that case was a cas...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. P.A. Madurai Chetty an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.347; (1927)53MLJ148
Waller, J.1. The appellant in this case is the Secretary of State for India. The respondent was the transferee of 800 maunds of salt belonging to a licensee named Chengalraya Chetty. On 27th February, 1923, he applied for permission to remove the salt, paid the duty of Rs. 1,000 at the rate then current of Rs. 1-4-0 per maund and got orders for delivery. The salt was, however, not removed till 1st March, by which time the duty had been doubled. By a rule framed under Section 85 of the Salt Act, the duty payable is that in force on the date of removal. The respondent was called upon to pay the deficient duty of Rs. 1,000 but refused to do so. Coercive steps were taken against him under Section 84 of the Act, whereupon he paid. He then sued to recover the sum of Rs. 1,000 plus interest and obtained a decree from the City Civil Court.2. As I understand the Lower Court's reasoning, it proceeded on some ground of supposed hardship of which the respondent had been the innocent victim. For re...
Bhavirisetti Lakshminarasimham Vs. Vetcha Lakshminarasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad728; 103Ind.Cas.502; (1927)53MLJ150
1. The question referred to the decision of the Full Bench in this case is as follows: 'Is the notice under Rule 53(6) to the judgment-debtor of the attached decree necessary before the attachment comes into force?' The learned Judges who made the reference have also added 'The Full Bench might also suggest if they think fit that Rule 53 be amended so as to make it plain what it actually means. A notice to the decree-holder of the attached decree would probably meet the case better than a notice to his judgment-debtor.'2. The question propounded refers to Rule 53(6) of Order 21 of Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judges who have made the reference appear to have thought that there was a conflict of view between the decision in the case of Kuppusami Aiyar v. Kuppusami Aiyar (1918) 24 MLT 495. and that in Nagu Reddiar v. Veerappa Mudaliar (1920) 13 LW 34 . We do not understand the learned Judge in the latter case to have expressed any opinion with regard to the question of c...
Panchanadam Pillai and ors. Vs. Parvati Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad955; 108Ind.Cas.649
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed under Section 92, Civil P.C., for a scheme in connexion with the Tiruppayathanathaswami temple, for the removal of defendants 1 - 4 who are the trustees, and the appointment of new trustees in their place, for an account and for other reliefs.2. The temple has properties of its own and also kattalai properties endowed from time to time by the ancestors of appellant 2 in A.S. No. 163 The relationship of the persons who endowed the kattalai is set out at p. 20 of the lower-Court's judgment At a partition between the members of this family entered into on 15th October 1873, and evidenced by Ex 1, properties worth Rs. 7,200 at the time were set apart for a kattalai in the temple. The objects are mentioned in the deed Ex 1, but it is not necessary to refer to them as there is no dispute about them. The material portion of the partition deed as regards the setting apart of the properties and the devolution of trusteeship runs a...
Chingi Chinnappa Naidu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Maniam Raju Goundan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ104
Ramesam, J.1. In dealing with this batch of Second Appeals it will be convenient to set forth the facts.. These suits relate to the ryotwari village of Muttlam in the North Arcot District. From time immemorial the ryotwari holdings were being held by the ryots excluding the trees, all the trees in the village being held under a separate tree patta by a tree pattadar. In the year 1906 the Government have changed the! policy of having separate land pattas and separate tree pattas, and the Board's standing Order No. 18 was altered as follows:Trees on occupied lands.--Subject to the exception noted below, no claim should ordinarily be made on behalf of the Government to any rights over trees growing on land held on ryotwari patta, or as inam, or as village or town house-site. Separate pattas should not be issued for the trees and where such pattas now exist the tree patta should be cancelled and the tree pattadar left to make his own arrangements with the land pattadar, if the two are diff...
P. Rama Aiyar Vs. T.R. Sivagnanam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ140
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by two of the trustees of Sree Sankaranarayanaswami Temple at Sankaranainar Koil for a declaration that the appointment by the Temple Committee of the two additional trustees is invalid. The ground on which the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit was that proper notice of the subject before the meeting, which eventually appointed the additional trustees, was not given to the members of the temple committee. They were not informed that at that meeting they were going to consider the question of the dismissal of one trustee and appoint two other additional trustees, and consequently the appointment was invalid. There were seven members of the temple committee and at the meeting in question when the additional trustees were appointed only three were present, and these gentlemen appointed the appellant and another as additional trustees. It is conceded that the temple committee has power to appoint additional truste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »