Chennai Court November 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.
M.P. Mangala Goundar Vs. P.S. Ayyathorai Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.765; (1928)55MLJ632
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for revising the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, setting aside the election of the petitioner as Councillor of the Palani Municipality.2. The facts are: The petitioner and the respondents contested the seat for the first ward in the Palani Municipality at the election held on 10th September, 1926. The petitioner came up, at the top of the poll and was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul objecting to the election of the petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified at the time of the election from standing as a candidate for the vacant councillorship as he was at the date of nomination and election the employer of a sitting Councillor, one Selva Dandapani Gurukkal. Several issues were raised and on the issue as to jurisdiction, the Subordinate Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of disqualif...
Velayudhan Pandaram Vs. Nallathambi Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad541
Devadoss, J.1. Several contentions are raised by Mr. Sesha Ayyangar for the appellant, but before considering them it is necessary to know whether the sale in favour of he plaintiff by defendant 3 evidenced by Exhibit B, was a nominal transaction or a real one. The Subordinate Judge, in para. 6 of his judgment, says:there is no question about the sale to the plain-tiff being nominal, the only position taken up being that it was executed in fraud of creditors.2. It is difficult to see how the Subordinate Judge came to make the remark that there was no question about the sale to the plaintiff being nominal. The plaintiff averre in his plaint that the sale was found to be nominal in O.S. 177 of 1912. The defendant, in his written statement, also stated that the sale was only a nominal one. In the written statement, in O.S. 177 of 1912 the defendant specifically pleaded thatthe sale was colourable and not supported by consideration and was never intended to be operative, and never became o...
Ramachandra Upadya and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Tantri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ455
Jackson, J.1. The question for determination is, whether, in a joint family, when the share of one brother is sold in execution, another brother can deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a person holding an interest in the property sold. It is held in Rottala Runganadhan Chetty v. Pulicat Ramasami Chetty ILR (1903) M 162 that every member of an undivided family has an interest in joint family property, that is to say, not the share of each, but the whole corpus of the property. Then if such member prefers to pay another member's debts rather than see the ancestral property pass to strangers (a transaction which may easily involve the family in discredit and inconvenience) there is no objection to his doing so. The petition is allowed with costs throughout; if petitioner pays the deposit within two weeks of receipt of this order, it may be accepted....
Rs. Ar. Ar. Arunachallam Chettiar by Agent, Valliappa Chettiar Vs. Nam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.5; (1928)54MLJ603
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Namakkal dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for a refund of a portion of the profession tax paid by him to the Union Board of Namakkal. The plaintiff's case is that he, a money lender, was assessed on the gross income for the year and that he is liable to pay profession tax only on the net income and that he is entitled to be paid back the amount which was collected in excess of the amount which he was liable in law to pay. The Union Board raised several pleas to the suit One of which was as regards the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such a suit and the second was that the defendant was justified in taking the gross income as the basis for assessing profession tax. The District Munsif held that under the Local Boards Act the gross income was the basis of taxation and that the court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The main contention of Mr. Seshagiri Sastri for the petit...
Duraiswami Reddiar Alias Suppa Reddiar Vs. P.K. Ramachandra thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1927
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.256
Ramesam, J.1. Apart from some differences in minor details in the cases I think the principle of Raja of Ramnad v. Muthanan Servai and of the decision of Phillips and Curgenven, JJ., in Appeal No. 416 of 1923, governs this case. The decision of the Courts below is right.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Vasudeva Rao and anr., Minors by Jeeva Bai Ammal, their Next Friend Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad412; 108Ind.Cas.301; (1928)54MLJ239
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs seek to have a declaration that the will, left by their father Hassaji Rao, is inoperative in respect of the property dealt with by it, on the ground that it was at his death joint family property in which the plaintiffs have an interest. If the plaintiffs' contention prevails, the testator had no right to dispose of the property in, question and it devolves upon the testator's sons by survivorship.2. In regard to the main facts there is little or no dispute. The earliest transaction, which I have to examine, is a division, effected among the members of this family, which is evidenced by the partition deed, dated the 20th of May, 1880. The parties to that partition were:(1) Hassaji Rao, the testator,(2) Ambaji Rao, his brother,(3) Subba Rao, their Step-brother and(4) Narasajirao, their paternal grand-father.3. Ambaji and Hassaji, being minors, were represented by their mother Balu Bai as guardian at the partition. Under the partition deed, a small ...
Srinivasa Raghava Patrachariar and anr. Vs. T.K. Srinivasa Raghava Iye ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1200; 110Ind.Cas.692
1. The District Munsif disposed of the suit on three preliminary points, the decision of any one of which against the plaintiff ends in the dismissal of the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge considering that ail three points involve mixed questions of fact and of law, remanded the suit. He has not reversed the findings of the District Munsif on these three points. His judgment amounts to saying that, on the materials before him, he was not able to agree with the findings of the District Munsif. He reversed the decree of the District Munsif. We think that this is an order of the Subordinate Judge under Order 41, Rule 23. The case of Habibullah Khan v. Lalta Prasad [1912] 34 All. 612 relied on by the learned vakil for the respondent is really against him. That case shows that while the order of the Subordinate Judge is an order under Order 41, Rule 23, the grounds of the order are not. good grounds. We overrule the preliminary objection.2. On the merits, it is difficult to sea what f...
Metukur Subba Reddy Vs. Damavarapu Venkatasubba Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad519; 110Ind.Cas.539; (1928)55MLJ72
Wallace, J.1. Plaintiff is suing the two defendants under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for rent. He claims rent at an enhanced rate following on an order under Section 42. All the proceedings under Section 42 were against the registered pattadar, the 1st defendant, and he remained ex parts. The 2nd defendant was as a matter of fact at that time in possession of the lands by a deed of transfer from the 1st defendant, but he was no party to the proceedings under Section 42. It is admitted, however, that neither he nor the 1st defendant had given notice of the transfer to the plaintiff as required by Section 146 of the Act. The 2nd defendant contested the suit for rent and claimed that as he was no party to the proceedings for enhancement he is not bound by these, and is entitled now to re-open the question of the propriety of the enhancement. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that by force of Section 147 the 2nd defendant is bound by the proceedings which bind his t...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chidambaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.461; (1928)55MLJ231
Phillips, J.1. One Dr. Doraiswami Pillai was assaulted by the accused and he thereupon sent a telegram, Exhibit A-1, to the Circle Inspector of Police.I was beaten severely by fifteen vellombers with hands and shoes tightening me this evening 5 in the bazaar, myself lost silk specs and rupees fifteen afraid much pray police bandobast.2. This telegram was received by the Circle Inspector and he and the Sub-Inspector went to Kandanoor from which place the telegram had been sent and the Sub-Inspector examined Doraiswami Pillai and recorded his statement, Ex. B-1. This has been admitted in evidence as the information recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. It is now contended by Mr. Ethiraj for the accused that this document is inadmissible in evidence as it is a statement recorded in the course of an investigation under Section 162. His contention is that Ex. A-1 is itself the information recorded under Section 154 and that the subsequent statement taken by the Police...
C. Singara Mudaliar Vs. M. Govindasami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.413; (1928)54MLJ145
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff applies for permission to amend his plaint, but the application, in my opinion, cannot be granted. The suit was filed originally in the City Civil Court, Madras, and he applied under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent that it might be removed to, and tried by this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. An order, I understand, was accordingly made. The present application has been argued on the footing that the effect of the proposed amendment would be to convert the suit into one which the City Civil Court (the forum originally chosen by the plaintiff) would have no jurisdiction to try. In the circumstances, can the amendment be allowed? In Annie Besant v. Narayaniak (1914) LR 41 IA 314 : ILR 38 M 807 : 1914 27 MLJ it was held that the powers of the High Court, in dealing with suits transferred under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, would be the powers which, but for the transfer, might have been exercised by the Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »