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.
Muthukrishna Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Harinaraya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad785
Jackson, J.1. The only point for determination in this appeal (except an application for an amendment of the pleadings which will be dealt with later) is whether, supposing that the widowed daughter of the propositus professes to adopt a son, the nearest reversioner in the family of the propositus has a right of suit within the terms of S. 42, Act I of 1877, to set aside such, adoption. The point was not raised in the lower Courts where the parties were content to fight out the issues on the facts, so it is not a question whether the lower Courts erred in discretion in allowing the suit--the time has long gone by to discuss discretion--but whether in law such a suit can possibly lie. The plaintiff is the reversioner, defendant 2 is the widowed daughter, and defendant 3 is the person alleged to have been adopted by her though, as now found, the adoption was invalid.2. It is conceded by the learned Advocate-General that if defendant 2 had alienated the estate, a suit would undoubtedly li...
Arunachallam Chettiar Vs. Sivalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad799
JUDGEMENTWallace, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order of the lower Court holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition to set aside certain findings recorded by it on 28th October 1926 in O. S. No. 64 of 1925.2. The facts are as follows: O. S. No. 64 of 1925 is a suit for partition. A preliminary decree had been passed and an enquiry into accounts was ordered. It was posted for 27th October 1926, the defendant having undertaken to produce his witnesses on that day. On that day, when the suit was called on for hearing, the defendant's pleader asked for an adjournment on the ground that defendant was ill and could not appear and that his witnesses also were absent. The adjournment was refused. P. W. 15, witness for the plaintiff, then went into witness-box and was examined and the defendant's pleader cross-examined him. Plaintiff's case was then closed and the Court called on the defendant's pleader to put forward his case. He then said he had no instruct...
Maniappa Udayan and ors. Vs. Sabapathi Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1082; (1927)53MLJ515
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was for recovery of the plaint property survey field No. 12/1 measuring about 2 acres. The plaintiffs' claim was by virtue of long possession and prescriptive title, the defendant's claim in virtue of a patta issued by Government. Either the land or the assessment of the land consituted a blacksmith inam, but neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants belong to the family of the original holders of the inam. On a decision as to which constituted the inam, rests the decision of the case.2. The first Court recorded a finding that the inam consisted of the assessment only. The lower appellate Court accepted that finding in one part of its judgment, para. 4, and in another part, para. 3 remarked that that the land formed part of the blacksmith inam cannot be denied.3. It is argued that in the latter sentence the lower appellate Court is using language loosely, but I am not able to accept that argument. The whole of the discussion in para. 3 of its judgment is...
(ivaturi) Lingayya Ayyavaru Vs. Kandula Gangiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad58
Wallace, J.1. The original suit in this case was for ejectment of the defendants from the suit lands. These are situated in Paydimukkala Agraharam, an entire inam which is geographically within the zamindari of Vuyyur. Part of the agraharam including the plaint lands, 4 acres, was bought in by the zamindar about 1873 and had apparently been treated from that date as home farm land. The plaint land was in fasli 1306 in possession of defendant 1 who leased it under Ex. C. In fasli 1313 he relinquished the four acres and this was granted as a service inam to one Venka-boyudu who leased it to defendant 1 for four years under Ex. M. In fasli 1316 the zamin came under the Court of Wards. It resumed the inam and issued, kambattam patta to defendant 1 for fasli 1316. In the next fasli a seri patta, Ex. VI, was issued to him, but he-refused it. He, however, remained in possession. In fasli 1S21 a patta, the nature of which is in dispute, was issued to Ranganayaki, the daughter of Venkaboyudu. B...
(Tiruvadipuram) Lakshmi Kumara Akkulnayanam Varu Vs. Palleti Chinna Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad799
1. The plaintiff, the Poligar of Chettedi, is the appellant before us. His claim in this suit was for a declaration that the kanoha lands described in the plaint belong to him and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from grazing cattle or trespassing thereon, or, in the alternative, for possession in case the defendants or any of them should claim to be in possession of the lands. The defendants set up in defence that they had an occupancy right in respect of the lands, that it was a customary right that was possessed by them of grazing cattle there on payment of Rs. 170 per fasli and that they further had the right of taking brushwood, etc., from the lands and also of cultivating portions of the lands. It must be observed that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is very unsatisfactory. He held that there was a customary right in the defendants to graze the cattle there on payment of Rs. 170 per annum and awarding to the plaintiff the rent in respect of two ...
Maniappa Udayam and ors. Vs. Sabapathi Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.202
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was for recovery of the plaint property, Survey Field No. 12/1, measuring about 2 1/2 acres. The plaintiffs' claim was by virtue of a long possession and prescriptive title, the defendants' claim in virtue of a patta issued by Government. Either the land or the assessment of the land constituted a blacksmith inam, but neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants belong to the family of the original holders of the inam. On a decision as to which constituted the inam rests the decision of the case.2. The first Court recorded a finding that the inam consisted of the assessment only. The lower Appellate Court accepted that finding in one part of its judgment, para. 4, and in another part, para. 3, remarked that 'that the land formed part of the blacksmith inam cannot be denied.' It is argued that in the latter sentence, the lower Appellate Court is using language loosely, but I am not able to accept that argument. The whole of the discussion in para. 3 of its j...
The Chingleput Municipal Council Represented by Its Chairman and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad798; (1927)53MLJ374
Murray coutts Trotter, Kt. C.J.1. In my opinion this motor-bus which plied for hire up and down the Municipality was clearly a carriage let out for hire within the Municipality on the true construction of Section 98 of the District Municipalities Act, and I really fail to understand how anybody could be supposed to feel any doubt about it. The mere fact that it is let out to several people instead of to one or that it travels on a fixed route instead of being at the beck and call of any one of the numerous or all the numerous hirers makes no difference whatever. This appeal must be allowed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs throughout....
Nune Ayyannamma Vs. Valloori Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ444
1. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff instituted a suit to establish her right to the site marked B in the plan and to direct the defendant to close the gateway D opened by him into the said site and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from opening the gateway. The defendant raised various contentions denying the plaintiff's exclusive right. After the framing of the issues the parties entered into a muchilika Ex. I by which the matters concerned in the suit and other matters in which other parties also were interested were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award Ex. II. The defendant filed it in Court and asked for a decree in terms of it. On objections being raised by the plaintiff an additional issue was raised as to whether there had been a lawful adjustment or compromise. The District Munsif holding that there was one, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. His decision was confirmed in appeal. The plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal ...
Srila Sri Vithilinga Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Muniandi Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad826
JUDGEMENTWallace, J.1. The order of the first Court granting a review does not indicate at all that it considered whether fresh matters, to be intoduced into the case, i. e., the documents and not the hypothetical answers that defendants might be eliciting in cross-examination are important, i. e., have really a relevant bearing on the case. Obviously, unless a Court is first satisfied prima facie that the new matter is important enough to have affected its judgment, had it been given at the trial, there will be no good reason for reversing and setting aside its own judgment. Nor has the lower appellate Court touched on this point.2. The petition for review must be re-heard from this point of view. But unless the trial Court is satisfied that the new matter is also important for the decision of the case, it has no jurisdiction to review. The orders of the lower Courts are reversed and the petition is remanded for rehearing. Costs up to date will abide the result....
Karuppanna Pillai Vs. Ethumalai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad859
JUDGEMENTOdgers, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, remanding a suit for fresh disposal to the District Munsif of Kulitalai after setting aside the District Munsif's decree.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff (respondent here) to declare that a certain property belonged to the Kamakshi Ammal Temple, Maradi village, the plaintiff being the hereditary trustee of that institution. The properties comprise two Survey Nos. 585-A and 585-B. As to 585-A there is no question because both the Courts have found that it belongs to the temple and it is conceded that the setting aside of the Munsif's decree by the Subordinate Judge is not intended to disturb this portion. With regard to 585-B the suggestion is that it was acquired on dharkhast by the defendant's grandfather who was a pujari of the temple and he thus acquired it in a fiduciary capacity and must be declared to have held it not on his own behalf but on behalf of the temple...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »