Chennai Court February 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.
Srinivasa Ayyar Vs. Nallamuthu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1245
ORDER1. The Subordinate Judge has misunderstood the decision in Sundaram Iyer v.' Ramchandra Ayyar [1917] 10 Mad. 386, which applied to only one village in the estate. He will submit the findings on the following questions: (A) Whether the suit village is such a village as is contemplated by Section 3 (2) (d), Estates Lands Act? and (B) Whether apart from that Act, the defendant has occupancy rights.2. The findings will be based on the evidence already on record and be submitted by 1st August 1926.3. Both parties will be at liberty to file objections to the said findings within ten days after notice of return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.4. (In compliance with the above order the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam submitted the findings in the negative on both the questions.) * * * * * *5. Two questions were referred for findings. Mr. Rangachariar has confined his argument to the first. He concedes that, when the village was' forefeited the Rajah was entitled to bot...
Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. Vijia Kumara Visvanatha Bangaru Thirumalai So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad725
Ramesam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant before me against the three defendants in O. S. No. 173 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Madura. In execution of this decree the plaintiff has attached and seeks to bring to sale the 2nd defendant's share in the village of Vellikurichi. The 2nd defendant is a member of the family of the Nayaks, the last native rulers of the Madura District. After the attached property was advertised for sale, the Government filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Civil P. C. claiming that they are entitled to the reversion in the attached property which is an unenfranchised inam and that it ought not to be sold. The 2nd defendant also filed a petition in para. 3 of which he states that the village of Vellikurchihas been held to be inalienable and impartible Kumara Thirumalai Naik v. Bangaru Tirumalai Sauri Naik [1898] 21 Mad. 310 and the same c...
Andalam Hanumanthu Vs. Peruri Krishtabrahman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad829
JUDGEMENTKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether a permanent lease by a mutavalli of wakf property is void or voidable. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it is void as not for necessary purposes but on the contrary an improvident transaction. The Subordinate Judge without giving any finding on this point was of opinion that it was only a voidable transaction and reversed the decision of the District Munsif. There can be little doubt on the authorities that a permanent lease is an alienation of property which a trustee cannot ordinarily enter into. I need only refer to Rama Varma Thambiran v. Raman Nair [1882] 5 Mad. 89 where it was held that a lease by a trustee for 96 years was invalid. The learned Judges observed:There seems to me no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and transfer for the long period of 93 years.2. In the case of Palaniappa Chetty v. Devasikamoni Pandara Sannadhi A. I. R. ...
K. V. Sundara Rama Iyer and ors. Vs. Sathianathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1190
1. The preliminary point that no appeal lies must prevail. There was no remand here under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P. C., though the District Judge refers to this in his judgment. It is a remand under Section 151, Civil P. C., as has been held recently in B. Mallayya v. P. Veerayya A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 335 and other cases. The District Munsif did not decide the suit on any preliminary point, but on all the issues raised after an ex-parte decree is set aside and the suit remanded for trial. Sadhu Krishna Aiyar v. Kuppan Ayyangar [1907] 30 Mad. 54 is authority for the proposition that the remand is not under Order 41, Rule 23. The learned vakil for the appellant desires to argue this on the footing of a civil revision petition. This cannot be done: cf. B. Mallayya v. P. Veerayya A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 335.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs of defendant 3. The memorandum of objections is not pressed and must be dismissed with costs....
Yeturi Lakshmi Narayan Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad96
Ramesam, J.1. The first point argued is there that is no valid appeal by the Government to the lower appellate Court. The vakalat was signed by the Personal Assistant to the Collector. G.O. No. 496 Home (Judicial), dated 2nd June 1919 authorizes the Personal Assistant Deputy Collector, Kistna, to sign and verify all pleadings in suit by or against the Secretary of State. Applying Order 27, Rule 2, the Personal Assistant becomes a recognized agent of the Secretary of State. By G.O. No. 195, dated 4th May 1905, the Collectors also are recognized agents. The appellant's vakil then states his objection thus:Assuming that the Collector and the Personal Assistant to the Collector are both agents of Government, still the Personal Assistant is not agent to the Collector. The vakalat purports to be executed by the Collector but signed by the Personal Assistant. This is not permissible. The vakalat though it begins 'I the Collector of Kistna do hereby' contains the cause title of the appeal wher...
Varanasi Ramabrahmam Vs. Kota Rami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad250
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. On behalf of the plaintiff appellant in this second appeal Mr. Raghava Rao has addressed to me a long, and learned argument, and after considering all that he has submitted I have come to the conclusion that the second appeal must be dismissed.2. The plaintiff as landlord sued to eject the defendant, his tenant, on the ground that the rent in respect of the land was not paid by the tenant on or before the 1st April for the fasli, and that, according to the clause in the lease, forfeiture followed. The covenant or condition in the lease is to this effect: the tenant, it is stated, should pay the rent due on or before the 1st March, and if he should make default, pay the same with interest at 12 per cent. per annum on or before the 1st April following; and that if, even then he should make default in the payment of the rent due he was liable to be ejected from the holding even without notice. The argument of Mr. Raghava Rao, the learned vakil for the appellant, w...
Arumuga Kone Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad275; 108Ind.Cas.214
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly under Section 438, Criminal P.C. The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly with a jury. The accused was originally charged under Sections 434, 392 and 397, I.P.C., all of which offences are triable by a jury. While the jury returned a verdict of not guilty with regard to the counts under the said section, they at the same time found the accused guilty of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon. The offence, [Under this last section, is under the Criminal Procedure Code, triable by a Judge only with assessors. The ground on which the reference has been made by the Sessions Judge is that the procedure adopted by the Assistant Sessions Judge was wrong and that if it was intended to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324, the opinion of the members of the jury should have been taken individually as assessors and the conviction should b...
K.V. Sundara Ramaiyer and ors. Vs. Sathianathan Alias Vengappa Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.28
1. The preliminary point that no appeal lies must prevail. There was no remand here under Order XLI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure though, the District Judge refers to this in his judgment. It is a remand under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code as has been held recently in Balla Mallayya v. Peddi Veerayya : AIR1927Mad335 and other cases.2. The District Munsif did not decide the suit on any preliminary point but on the whole of the issues raised; after an ex parte decree is set aside and the suit remanded for trial. Sadhu Krishna Aiyar v. Kuppan Ayyangar 20 M.P 54 : 1 M.L.T. 268 : 16 M.L.J. 479 is authority for the proposition that the remand is not under Order XLI Rule 23. The learned Vakil for the appellant desires to argue this on the footing of a Civil Revision Petition. This cannot be done. Cf., Balla Mallayya v. Peddi Veerayya : AIR1927Mad335 3. The appeal is dismissed with costs of 3rd defendant. The memorandum of objections is not pressed and must be dismissed wit...
In Re: Mr. S.C. Srinivasachariar, Second Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ669
1. The charge against the pleader in this case was that, having received two sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 54 from the defendant in a suit in which he was appearing for the plaintiff, he misappropriated it and converted it to his own use. The money was received at the end of 1923. Many demands were made upon him and he did not pay any attention to them. Ultimately some time in 1926 a complaint was launched under the Legal Practitioners Act against the pleader and he then undoubtedly paid the money and he also put forward an explanation which the District judge has found to be untrue, namely, that he had been asked by some relations--it is very difficult to make out which of his clients--to keep the money in order that it might be utilised in the purchase of stones for the construction of a temple which I think the client's father was supposed to have been building in Sholinghur. Nobody came forward to speak to the story one way or other. As 1 say, the learned Judge took the vie...
G. Martirosi Vs. A.K.C.T. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.516; (1928)54MLJ49
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I have in my order of reference dealt with the cases, both English and Indian, dealing with the question referred. Sections 12 and 13 of the Indian Arbitration Act are taken almost verbatim from Sections 9 and 10 of the English Arbitration Act. So far as the English Act is concerned, the authorities are clear that the Court has power to extend the time in the case of remitted awards even though the award has been delivered. I need only refer to Lord v. Lee (1868) LR 3 QB 404 and to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Knowles & Sons, Ltd. v. Bolton Corporation (1900) LR 2 QB 253.2. Louis Dreyfus & Co. v. Rajagopal Aiyar (1922) 16 LW 657 and Tejpal lamunadas v. Nathmull & Co. ILR (1919) C 1059 also follow the view taken by the English Courts. So far as the cases under the Civil Procedure Code are concerned, there has been a diversity of opinion. To the cases I have already referred to in the order of reference I might add Gopalji Kallianji v. Chhaganlal Vittha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »