Chennai Court December 1927 Judgments
Natesa Vanniyan Vs. Gopalasami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.830; (1928)55MLJ151
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvalur, in Appeal No. 57 of 1925 from the decree in O.S. No. 528 of 1923, District Munsif, Nannilam.2. One Narayani Ammal sold certain property, described now as the A schedule property, in 1890 to one Subramania Sastri. Her husband Swaminatha Aiyar executed a security bond, Ex. F, undertaking that if Subramania Sastri, the vendee, should be deprived of any of the property for various reasons he would compensate him with equivalent property, now described as the B schedule property. Subsequently Subramania Sastri mortgaged the A schedule property, the mortgagee sued and brought the property to sale, and it was bought in court auction by one Namasivaya Pillai who sold the property to the present plaintiff. Meanwhile Muthusavvmi Aiyar, the second son of Narayani Ammal, sued to cancel the original sale, succeeded, and then dispossessed Namasivaya Pillai, and his vendee the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to enforce the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thanmul Sowcar Vs. Nattu Ramadoss Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad500; (1928)55MLJ358
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff is a first mortgagee and is suing to enforce his mortgage which runs over A and B Schedule properties. In the suit he gave up his right over B Schedule property on the ground that his mortgagor, the 1st defendant, had sold it to one Narasimhalu Chetti and had credited the sale price to the interest of the mortgage. The 2nd defendant, the appellant, has been joined in the suit as the purchaser of the equity of redemption in A Schedule property. He also appears to be the second mortgagee of A Schedule property. He claims that in this suit he is entitled as second mortgagee so to marshal the burdens on A and B Schedule properties as to compel the plaintiff to bring the B Schedule property to sale and recover from it as much of his mortgage debt as he can before he proceeds against A Schedule property and for that end the appellant maintains that his petition to bring the B Schedule property purchaser Narasimhalu Chetti on the record in order that this claim mig...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswami Gurukkal and anr. Vs. Subramania Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad419; 108Ind.Cas.625; (1928)54MLJ361
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The facts of these Second Appeals are as follows: The plaintiffs are Dharmakarthas of Sri Venkateswaraswami Temple in Kadapperi Village in Chin-gleput District, to which temple the suit village belongs as Shrot-riem. There is no question in the case that the Shrotriem is not an estate. The litigation has proceeded on the footing that it is an estate. The suits were brought by the plaintiffs under Section 56 of the Estates Land Act for the acceptance of pattas and the execution of corresponding muchilikas. The pattas contain a new clause as compared with the former pattas. The additional clause runs thus:Since for raising second or third cropsi on the single crop nanja land among the lands referred to in paragraph 1, and for raising first, second or third crops on the poramboke varappathu nanja lands, they have to be irrigated with the Madurantakam tank water, and since the Government charge the Shrotriem office, water-cess at the rate of Rs. 4 per acre for the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Gamini Rangayya Vs. Rajahmundry Municipal Council Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ581
Phillips, J.1. The contention raised by the appellant is that under Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920 a municipal council is not empowered to remove an encroachment, the title to which became 'perfected before the commencement of the Act. There is nothing in Section 182 to suppose that any distinction is drawn between a title perfected before the coming into force of the Act and a title perfected after its coming into force. Clause (1) states in very general terms that any projection, encroachment or obstruction may be removed or altered. If the legislature had intended to except any class of encroachments from this rule, one would naturally expect a special clause to that effect. Instead of inserting such a clause, the legislature has enacted Clause (2) which says that when the projection, etc., has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give a prescriptive title, then it shall be liable to removal, but the council shall pay reasonable co...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnaswami Naicker Vs. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad545; (1928)54MLJ671
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Ramnad on an application under the Guardians and Wards Act for the assignment of a security bond executed by a guardian and sureties* under Section 34 (a) of the Act. That section shows that the guardian and sureties engage themselves duly to account for what may be received in respect of the property of the ward. The learned District Judge rejected the petition holding that as the ward had attained majority he had no jurisdiction to act under Section 35 and for this position he relies upon the decision in Subbarami Reddi v. Pattabhirama Reddi : (1926)51MLJ249 now also reported in ILR (1926) M. 80. In that case the guardian was discharged after filing his accounts in court and it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and ascertain what amount is really due by the guardian. The application was filed under Section 41 and in the course of the judgment it is observed that a court a...
Tag this Judgment!Alluri Timmaraju Vs. Alluri Narasimha Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad522; (1928)54MLJ665
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sued for possession with mesne profits. The Additional District Munsif of Rajahmundry dismissed his suit. The Appellate Court decreed the suit on 3rd February, 1919. On the 30th November, 1921, the plaintiff put in an application under Order 20, Rule 12, for the determination of mense profits. He paid batta, but service of notice was not effected, and, on his failure to pay additional batta, the court dismissed the application. He applied again on 6th December, 1922, more than three years after the date of the Appellate Court decree. The question for determination is whether plaintiff is not now debarred from having the mesne profits ascertained.2. There can be no doubt that the application of December, 1922, is an application within the scope of Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, and, being three years subsequent to the time when the right to apply accrued, it is clearly barred-3. But the application of November, 1921, was within time and it is not so cl...
Tag this Judgment!(Mele Pottozhi) Kunhi Krishnan Nair Vs. Kunnath Kunhahmad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad488
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil revision petition arises in the following circumstances: The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 61 under an oral agreement entered into by the defendant. The learned District Munsif taking evidence' with reference to the claim dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It appears from the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, that at the time when the case was taken up for disposal the defendant offered to be bound by an oath of the plaintiff with respect to that claim. The oath agreement completely covers the points for decision in the case. The plaintiff was to take the oath in the Mulayankavu temple and the defendant was to pay the oath expenses. The plaintiff went to the temple to take the oath, but the defendant insisted on approaching the inner entrance of the temple to place the oath fees at the front mantapam and hear the oath. The authorities could not administer the oath to the plaintiff as the defendant who is a Mahomeda...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Gopala Pattar Vs. K.S. Gopalakrishna Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad630
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The only question that arises in this second appeal bears on the rule of res judicata. That rule was invoked against the plaintiff who is the appellant before us and both the lower Courts having found against him on the point, he has been nonsuited. Hence this second appeal. His present suit, which on the application of the rule of res judicata, he has been held by the lower Courts not entitled to maintain, is for a third share of a certain property and for the partition, ascertainment and delivery over of the same. His claim to such share is based on the allegation that the property belonged in common to his father, to defendant 1 and to the father of defendants 2 and 3 as relating to a kurchit of which the said three persons were the stakeholders or proprietors. The previous suit the adjudication in which has been put forward as a bar to the present claim of the plaintiff was instituted as plaintiff by the present defendant 1. The father of defendants 2 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!Periyaya Ambalam Vs. Arulappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad806
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that an appeal lies under Section 47, Civil P.C., and, therefore, this revision petition does not lie. Mr. Ramaswami Ayyar who appears for the respondents relies, in support of the preliminary objection, on the Full Bench decision in Veyindramuthu Pillai. v. Mayanadan [1919] 43 Mad. 107. The principles laid down by the Full Bench were afterwards applied by the referring Bench to which the case came back, Veindramuthu Pillai v. Mayanadan [1920] 43 Mad. 696. These two cases were also applied by Krishnan, J., in Jainulabdin Sahib v. Krishna Chettiar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 420.2. In the Full Bench case certain abstract questions were referred to the Full Bench. While answering those questions the Officiating Chief Justice observed that, if there is any question relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, the auction-purchaser is bound to have it settled under Section 47, even though he cannot be regarded as a legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Gopala Patter Vs. K.S. Gopalakrishna Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.596
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.The only question that arises in this second appeal bears on the rule of res judicata. That rule was invoked against the plaintiff who is the appellant before us and both the lower Courts having found against him on the point, he has been nonsuited. Hence this second appeal by him.His present suit, which on the application of the rule of res judicata, he has been held by the lower Courts, not entitled to maintain, is for a third share of a certain property and for the partition, ascertainment and delivery of the same. His claim to such share is based on the allegation that the property belonged in common to his father, to the 1st defendant and to the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as relating to a kurichit of which the said three persona were the stake-holders or proprietors.The previous suit the adjudication in which has been put forward as a bar to the present claim of the plaintiff was instituted as plaintiff by the present 1st defendant. The father of defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »