Chennai Court March 1927 Judgments
Suravarapu Venkata Subramanya Sastri Vs. Yalla Bhiravaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad917; (1927)53MLJ447
1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. Ex. D is a cowle deed executed on 2nd May, 1891, which was to operate for a period of 16 years. The suit was filed on 2nd May, 1919. The District Munsif found that it was in time. The Sub-Judge in first appeal was of opinion that the lease expired at the end of the year Parabhava--about 13th April, 1917--and held that the suit was out of time. In Second Appeal Phillips, J., agreed with the Subordinate judge.2. There is some controversy as to the correct translation of the. relevant portion of the deed. Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellant contends that the proper translation is 'from this year Parabhava year included for 16 years'. Mr. Rama Rao, on the other side, accepts the version adopted by the Subordinate Judge 'from this year to Parabhava inclusive 16 years'. The translation in the printed record is '16 years, i. e., from this year till the end of the Telugu year Parabhava'. We have had a fourth translation made in this Court and it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Kolluri Lakshminarayana Vs. Kambhampati Lakshmipathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ520
1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit was on a promissory note dated the 4th of February, 1917 which was executed in renewal of a prior promissory note dated the 3rd of April, 1914, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs' father. The present suit was filed on the 11th of October, 1922. The plaintiff's father's sister filed O.S. No. 205 of 1917 on the promissory note dated the 3rd of April 1914. Her case was that the note was nominally taken in plaintiffs' father's name, with her money and that she is entitled to the amount due on the promissory note. The District Munsif passed a decree in her favour in 1919. The decree declared her right and directed the present plaintiffs who were the 2nd and 3rd defendants in that suit to endorse the promissory note in her favour. There was an appeal and the Subordinate Judge on the 13th of October, 1919 reversed the decision of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Both the present plaintiffs and the defendant were...
Tag this Judgment!Gonuguntla Sabbayya and anr. Vs. Gonuguntla Rangayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad883
Wallace, J.1. The facts, as found by the lower appellate Court, which are necessary for the disposal of this second appeal, are that the plaintiff 1's father, now dead, and the defendant 1 were undivided brothers in a Hindu joint family, the former being the elder and presumably manager, that on 2nd Febru-1915 the plaintiff 1's father became a convert to christianity, but that the two brothers continued to live together, the plaintiff 1's father continuing to manage the family property, that in 1916 under Ex, C, plaintiff 1's father and one Darsi Seshayya jointly bought one half share in A schedule property, and that the plaintiff 1's father died intestate on 15th December 1920, leaving an only son, the 1st plaintiff. His contention here is that the succession to his father, so far as the A schedule properties are concerned, opens according to the Indian Succession Act which applies to his father as he was a christian. Defendant 1 contends here that the coparcenery was never dissolved,...
Tag this Judgment!(Natuvanjeri Ismalutty's son) Ahmmadkutty Vs. Cherukava Moidutty and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad952
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by him for partition. The plaint property belonged to one Moideen. He died leaving a widow and two children, Mahmmadkutty, a son, and Biyyakutty, a daughter. Mahmmadkutty died leaving as his heirs defendant 2, his widow, and defendant 1, his daughter. Defendant 2 instituted a suit for partition (O. S. No. 407 of 1903) and obtained a decree. In the meanwhile Mahmmadkutty had mortgaged his interest to one Kunheen in May 1899 and the plaintiff had purchased that interest. As such purchaser he brought a suit (O. S. No. 419 of 1911) on Mahmmadkutty's mortgage and obtained a decree for the sale of Mahmmadkutty's share in the properties. In execution of that decree he himself purchased the said share in Court auction and obtained delivery of the plaint properties. The defendant 3, in the present suit, having obtained an interest in the properties from some of the defendants in O. S. No. 407 of 1903 put in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Opporti Padhi Vs. Paila Ujjulla and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad998
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The defendant in the action from which the second appeal has arisen has now taken the point that the judgment of the Court appealed against was one made on an application for review to the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff whose suit had been dismissed by the trial Court appealed to the lower appellate Court. In the first place his appeal was also dismissed. He thereupon applied to the lower appellate Court for review and the review was granted and in the place of the dismissal of the appeal a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the property sued for. This is what the learned Subordinate Judge says with regard to the ground on which he granted the review:The only ground urged for review was that the Court failed to note the decision in Subba Goundan v. Krishnamachari A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 112 quoted by the appellant's vakil, and wrongly noted the contention of the appellants in para. 5 of its judgment. After hearing both parties I have ...
Tag this Judgment!(O. Vogili) Ramakrishna Reddi Vs. Baddevolu Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad52; 108Ind.Cas.205
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1 in the action. The plaintiff's suit was for the purpose of a declaration that he was entitled to pass, by cutting in the bund marked B, in the plan set out in the judgment of the learned District Munsif both the irrigation and the rain-water falling on his land, on to the land of the defendant adjacent to the plaintiff's land. The Court of first instance held against the plaintiff so far as the right was claimed in respect of the irrigation water brought by the plaintiff on to his land, but gave a decree to the plaintiff in respect of the rainwater.2. Both parties appealed from the decree. Defendant 1's appeal from the original decree was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The contention now put forward on behalf of the appellant, defendant 1, is that though the plaintiff may have the natural right of passing off. to the defendant's land the rainwater as it falls it must be done naturally and not by adopting any artif...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.V. Krishnan Pillai and ors. Vs. Kilasathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad810; 108Ind.Cas.69
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The question for determination in this second appeal is whether the mandatory injunction granted', by the lower Courts against the defendant was properly granted. There is really no serious dispute about the facts. of the case. The dispute relates to a lane of about 5% feet in width. It is admitted that this lane is the common property of both the parties. It is also clear that on a previous occasion defendant threatened to deal with the lane in. a manner not consistent with its being the common property and thereupon an injunction was issued against him. The injunction, however, issued in that case does not cover the present case. The facts, so far as the present case is concerned, are, as found by the lower Courts, that 10 or 12 years ago the defendant who owned apparently both the properties on either side of this lane, put up a sort of a platform as a sort of a roof or covering for the lane and built a thatched shed thereon. About 1921 he altered the tiled ...
Tag this Judgment!Naturanjeri Ismalkutty's Son Ahmedkutty Vs. Cherukana Moiduthy and Ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.414
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by him for partition. The plaint property belonged to one Moideen. He died leaving a widow and two children, Mammakutty a son, and Biyyakutty a daughter. Mammakutty died leaving as his heirs the 2nd defendant his widow, and the 1st defendant his daughter. The 2nd defendant instituted a suit for partition (O.S. No. 407 of 1903) and obtained a decree. In the meanwhile, Mammakutty had mortgaged his interest to one Kunheen in May, 1899, and the plaintiff had purchased that interest. As such purchaser he brought a suit (O.S. No. 409 of 1919) on Mammakutty's mortgage and obtained a decree for the sale of Mammakutty's share in the properties. In execution of that decree he himself purchased the said share in Court-auction and obtained delivery of the plaint properties. The 3rd defendant in the present suit having obtained an interest in the properties from some of the defendants in O.S. No. 407 of 1903, put in a...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and ors. and Subbaraya Goundan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ763
Wallace, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgments in connected suits. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. One Palani Goundan was the father of one Kavundai Goundan, who is the 5th defendant in O.S. No. 559 of 21. His sons are defendants 6 to 8. 5th defendant sold certain family property under Ex. B to defendants 1 to 4, who in their turn sold it to the plaintiff under Ex. C. The sale covered eight items. Plaintiff claimed that they were all the 5th defendant's properties at the time of the sale by him to defendants 1 to 4, that the 5th defendant had separated from his family and had got items 1 to 4 and 8 for his share and that as regards 5, 6 and 7 they were his self-acquisitions. The contest in the suits ranged round the question whether Palani Goundan was still joint with the 5th defendant and his sons, and whether items 5, 6 and 7 were the self-acquisitions of the 5th defendant. The lower appellate court has decided that there was no partition...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Muthusami Naicken Vs. Somasundaram Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ814
Wallace, J.1. The second defendant executed a promissory note to the plaintiff on 27th July, 1919. He was then the junior paternal uncle and de facto guardian of the minor 1st defendant. The promissory note was for the discharge of a mortgage debt over the minor's estate. In the body of the promissory note, 2nd defendant described himself as guardian and junior paternal uncle of the minor Somasundaram Mudaliar (1st defendant) and he signed it as 'Ramanatha Mudaliar, Kurnam'. The point for decision in this case is whether he signed the note in his, own personal capacity or in his capacity as de facto guardian of 1st defendant.2. Now, in a matter of Negotiable Instruments which may pass from hand to hand to persons who have no personal knowledge of original parties at all, the law that it must be clear on the face of the note who has executed it and whose estate is liable for it must be interpreted more strictly than in the case of a contract, and citations of cases which deal with contr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »