Chennai Court October 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.
(Kenath Puthan Veetial) Siva Sankara Menon Vs. (Chalakattal Natuvile) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad878
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the assignee of the decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1919 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court of Palghat which was passed in a land suit by a jenmi against the kanomdar. The assignee prayed to attach the money standing to the credit of O.S. No. 53 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Palghat which was filed by the malcharth-holder to whom the same jenmi had granted a melcharth, against a prior kanomdar and against sub-mortgagees from that kanomdar. The jenmi was a party to that suit. Pending the decision in O.S. No. 53 of 1919, the jenmi assigned the decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1919. The preliminary decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1919 was passed on 13th February 1919 and the final decree in January 1921. The assignment was made subsequent to the preliminary decree and before the final decree. The District Munsif allowed the execution application and the District Judge dismissed it on t...
C. Gangadhara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Chariar, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad905; 108Ind.Cas.793
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Chingleput returning a plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs ware not entitled to bring the suit. It is contended by Mr. K Krishnaswamy Iyengar that the learned Judge refused to entertain the suit on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. But he is not quite correct there. What the learned Judge held was that the petitioners could not bring the suit on account of the passing of the Religious Endowments Act of 19 25. He was not right in holding that after the passing of the Religious Endowments Act, worshippers who had instituted suits before the passing of the Act, could not continue them. There is nothing in the Religious Endowments Act, which could take away the right of persons who were parties to pending actions at the time of the passing of the Act. This action having been brought before the passing of the Act, the right of the plaintiffs was not taken away by anything contained in the Act. What...
ibrahim Sahib Vs. Achi Thayarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad296; (1928)54MLJ452
Devadoss, J.1. It is urged that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to restore to file an application made in the course of execution proceedings and therefore the order of the Subordinate Judge is ultra vires. The respondent made an application for execution which was dismissed on the 24th July, 1925. Before the dismissal of that petition, the petitioner applied for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him and paid into court the decree amount. The day after the withdrawal of the execution petition by the respondent, the petitioner's vakil withdrew the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree, as he thought that the decree in favour of the respondent had been barred by limitation. On the same day, 25th July, 1927, the respondent applied for payment of the amount in court to him. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this application for non-appearance on 17th October, 1925, and he restored it on 23rd October, 1925. The question is whether this application for payment ...
Pichai Pillai and ors. Vs. Lingam Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad268; 108Ind.Cas.199
Phillips, J.Appeal No. 89 of 1925.1. This is an appeal against a decree framing a scheme in respect of the suit charity and removing the defendants from trusteeship. The suit properties which are said to be the subject-matter of the trust belonged originally to one Vaidyalinga Pillai who died leaving a widow Papammal, a son and two daughters. The son and his wife predeceased Papammal on whom therefore the property devolved. In 1858, by Ex. B she gifted the greater portion of the suit properties for a chattram and for feeding five Brahmins and two Saivites at Trichinopoly. She also purported to appoint trustees for the charity and mentioned four names in Ex. B. Apparently these trustees did not assume office during her lifetime but she continued to manage the. trust until her death in 1875. After her death' Ayya Pillai, her son-in-law and one of the trustees nominated in Ex. B took possession and carried on the trust. He died in 1877 leaving a will under which he nominated his son Kunju...
Secretary of State Vs. Muthu Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1093
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader for revising the order of the District Munsif of Tiruvalur ordering inspection of certain documents in the possession of the Collector of Tanjore. The main point urged before me by Mr. Venkataramana Rao is that these documents are confidential communications and therefore the respondent is not entitled to look into them. This objection was not raised in the lower Court and the order made by the District Munsif, which is objected to, cannot be said to have been made without jurisdiction and I therefore decline to interfere with it. But in dismissing this petition I might observe that I strongly deprecate the conducting of correspondence by the Collector and the District Judge in their official capacity with reference to the production of these documents. It is to be regretted that acting upon a letter of the District Collector of Tanjore, the District Judge passed proceedings which are printed at p. 17. The District Judge i...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.872
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader for revising the order of the District Munsif of Tiruvahir ordering inspection of certain documents in the possession of the Collector of Tanjore. The main point urged before me by Mr. Venkataramana Rao is that these documents are confidential communications and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to look into them. This objection was not raised in the lower Court and the order made by the District Munsif, which is objected to, cannot be said to have been made without jurisdiction and I, therefore, decline to interfere with it. But in dismissing this petition, I might observe that I strongly depreciate the conducting of correspondence by the Collector and the District Judge in their official capacity with reference to the production of these documents. It is to be regretted that acting upon a letter of the District Collector of Tanjore, the District Judge passed proceedings which are printed at page 17. The District...
Pathumma Umma and ors. Vs. Aliyammakkanakath Mohideen (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad929
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. In this second appeal the defendants, against whom a decree for ejectment has been made have appealed to this Court against the refusal of the lower appellate Court to grant to them the value of certain improvements consisting in the construction of a pucca building on the site in-question.2. A preliminary objection to the appeal has been taken on behalf 'of the respondents on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid in respect of the appeal. The appellants have paid the same Court-fee in the second appeal as was paid in respect of the plaint by the plaintiff-respondent. The contention has been advanced that though in a suit for possession the Court-fee payable on a plaint may be as prescribed in a. particular manner by the Court-fees Act, still when the appeal is by the defendant, and when the claim by the defendant on appeal has reference to the compensation claimed by him but refused to be granted,, the valuation of the appeal should logically ...
V.K. Kelu Achan Vs. C.S. Sivarama Pattar Karikar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad879
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sub Court, Palghat in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., to remove the defendants from the trusteeship of the plaint temple and to prescribe a scheme for its management. The temple is that of Viswanathaswami. situated at the side of the Kalpathi river in Palghat. Admittedly it has been for a long time in the management of the defendants' edom which is the Valia, Konikkal edom. Defendant 1 was sued, originally as the karnavan of that edom and defendant 2 as the actual manager of the temple affairs appointed as such by a tarwad karar. During the course of the suit, in July 1922, defendant 2 died, and defendant 1 succeeded him in the management of the temple. Defendant 1 therefore before us holds the double position of the karnavan of the Edom and the manager of the temple. Defendant 3 was added as the senior anandravan of the tarwad on the death of defendant 2. The plaintiffs are representative Brahmins from four villages, which ...
Sakkaraiyappa Pillai Vs. Samusukani Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1192; 110Ind.Cas.389
Devadoss, J.1. The appellant was appointed Triune Officer by the Divisional Officer of Koilpatti on 4th June 1918. Respondent 1 has brought this suit for a declaration that the appointment is invalid and that he is the proper person to hold the office of the Triune Officer. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree in favour of respondent 1.2. The first contention of the appellant is that he was Ambalam at the time of the revision of the village establishment and that his name was sent up by the landholder and the Divisional Officer appointed him as Triune Officer and therefore the appointment is good. He relied upon his appointment as Ambalam, but, from the records, it appears that he was appointed by the landholder and there was do office of Ambalam in the village before his appointment. But it appears from Ex. G that that the appellant was the Village Munsif at the time. It is contended by Mr. Marthandam Pillai for the appellant that, inasmuch as he was the Village Munsif the landhol...
Edega Obanna Vs. Kanithi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.544
1. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us instituted the suit for recovery of possession of certain, property mortgaged to him with possession and for damages for wrongful trespass committed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and in the alternative for a decree on the mortgage. In the Court of the District Munsif, the plaintiff obtained a decree against 1st defendant mortgagor for the amount of the mortgage plus the sum of Rs. 180 as and for damages and so far as the 2nd defendant was concerned the decree against him was confined to a sum of Rs. 90 probably as being, half the amount of the damages caused to the plaintiff by the trespass complained of. The lower Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff's suit was a simple mortgage suit and finding that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were claiming title to the property on a paramount title held that they were not proper parties and reversing the decree of the District Munsif dismissed the suit against defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2. On this app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »