Chennai Court March 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.
(Kanchumarti) Venkata Krishnayya Garu Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad89
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings instituted for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect of the acquisition by the Government of 50 acres 75 cents of land situate in the town of Rajahmundry. The land was acquired for the construction of the Government Arts and Training Colleges at Rajahmundry. There were disputes as regards ownership of the land. Claimant 1 is the adopted son of K.V. Krishnayya who admittedly was the owner of the property and who was in possession. Claimant 2 is a reversioner who disputed the adoption. He succeeded in the Subordinate Judge's Court but in appeal the High Court upheld the adoption and claimant 1 was declared to be entitled to the estate. This judgment of the High Court was affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council so that the person now entitled to the property is claimant 1.2. The Government notified its intention to acquire the property on the 19th July 1921. On that day the claimant 2 had...
In Re: Sundareswara Srouthigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ602
ORDER1. The complainant (P.W. 1), an Izhttva convert to Arya Samaj, who is employed as a clerk in the District Registrar's Office, Palghat, was sent by the District Registrar to Govindarajapuram gramam to transact some official business. While he was returning after finishing his work he was stopped in the middle of the road at New Kalpathy by the petitioner, a Brahmin, and was taken to task for passing along the agraharam road. The petitioner was then charged before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Palghat with the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. On the evidence the Sub-divisional Magistrate found that P.W. 1 went to Govindarajapuram to execute the orders of the District Registrar, that there is no evidence to support the suggestion of the defence that he went along the Kalpathy Road in order to, insult and annoy the Kalpathy Brahmins, that the street along which he passed is a public street and that the charge of wrongful restraint brought ag...
Dharmala Kamayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Bhimarasetti Mahalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ339
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of certain land. In execution he applied for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 and delivery was ordered. The finding is that what was effected was no more than a formal delivery of possession. He waited for nearly 12 years after that and then sued again. The question for decision--the defendant having been in possession both before and after the delivery for a total period of about 20 years--is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The District Munsif decreed the suit, but the District Judge held that it was time-barred, a conclusion in which Devadoss, J., concurred in second appeal. He dissented from Govind v. Venkata Sastrulu (1907) 17 MLJ 598 and followed Govindasami Pillai v. Pethaperumal Chetty 44 INDCAS 839, which, he considered, was binding on him and certain rulings of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The effect of these decisions is this : that, in cases where a decree-holder is bound to apply for actual a...
Chinnathorai Pillai Vs. Rao Bahadur M.R. Govinda Rao (Since Removed fr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ306
1. The plaintiff-respondent is the manager of the Piranmalai Devasthanam. He instituted a suit to recover rent in respect of certain lands belonging to the Devasthanam which were granted on a permanent lease at a favourable rent by one of his predecessors. Exhibit II, dated the 21st of January, 1900, is the perpetual cowle. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellant on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act and that the lease was justifiable under Section 26 of the Estates Land Act because it was granted for the purpose of bringing waste land into cultivation. Following Vidya Varuthi v. Balusami Aiyar ILR (1921) M 831 : 41 MLJ 346 and other decisions of this Court the learned Judge (Phillips, J.) held that Article 134 did not apply to this case and as according to these rulings the period of limitation began to run only from the date of the ascension of the plaintiff trustee to his office, he held that the suit is in time. He also held...
S.S. Balakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. Parvathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ494
Odgers, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Jackson in. C.M.P. No. 4487 of 1926 dated 17th December, 1926. The suit in which the order was made was one for administration of the estate of a certain deceased person and the defendants asked for stay of proceedings in the suit before the 'Subordinate Judge. On the 3rd September, 1926, Mr. Justice Jackson made an order of which the following is the relevant portion:Petitioners to give security for Rs. 44,000 as found by the Commissioners to the satisfaction of the Lower Court within three months. Otherwise the petition to stand dismissed with costs.On the 3rd December, 1926, the petitioners put in an application to extend the time for furnishing security. The matter came up on the 17th December, 1926 before Mr. Justice Waller who transferred it to Mr. Justice Jackson for hearing. Mr. Justice Jackson found that the period had expired as the Subordinate Judge had found the security to be insufficient and that t...
Meenal Vs. Govindasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad960; (1928)54MLJ157
Ramesam, J.1. The question is whether Ex. A is genuine. This is a question of fact. The learned vakil for the petitioner argued that the Subordinate Judge's appreciation of the evidence was influenced by his erroneous conception of the law relating to a vendor's covenant as to title, but I am not satisfied that there is anything erroneous in the Subordinate Judge's statement of the law. The vakil also argued that the Subordinate Judge's statement about the ink of the signatures of the two attesting witnesses is not correct though the difference in ink is not quite convincing to me that the origin of the document is suspicious. I cannot say there is no difference. Similar remarks apply to the Subordinate Judge's statement about the last sentence in the document and to the last four lines and middle four lines being written closely.2. It may be that the High Court has power to interfere in Small Cause Revision even on the question of fact, Nathuram Shivnarayan v. Dhularam Hariram ILR (19...
Dharmala Kamayya and ors. Vs. Bhimarasetti Mahalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad849
JUDGEMENT1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of certain land. In execution he applied for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 and delivery was ordered. The finding is that what was affected was no more than a formal delivery of possession. He waited for nearly 12 years after that and then sued again. The question for decision--the defendant having been in possession both before and after the delivery, for a total period of about 20 years--is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The District Munsif decreed the suit, but the District Judge held that it was time barred, a conclusion in which Davadoss, J. concurred in second appeal. He dissented from Govind Biliraji v. Venkata Sastrulu [1907] 17 M. L. J. 598 and followed Govindasami Pillai v. Pethaperumal Chetty [1918] IND. CAS. 839 which he considered, was binding on him and certain rulings of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The effect of these decisions is this, that, in case where a decree-holder is b...
S. A. Kulathu Aiyar Vs. Vaithilingam Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad876
1. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 in 1914 and got a decree. When he attempted to execute his decree, he was faced with a claim by the defendant 1 based on a sale to him by the defendant 2. The claim was allowed and the plaintiff sued to set aside the order on the claim. He succeeded in the 1st Court, but failed in appeal, the Subordinate Judge holding inter alia that his decree had been satisfied. In second appeal, Odgers, J., restored the decree of the trial Court. He was of opinion that the plea that the decree had been discharged was not open to the defendant 1.2. The finding of the 1st appellate Court that the decree had been discharged is, perhaps, not wholly satisfactory. It is however, a finding of fact, which was not objected to in second appeal. So it calls for no further consideration. There is a decision of the Allahabad High Court, Tegh Singh v. Amin Chand [1883] 5 All. 269 which seems to be exactly in point. The terms of Su...
Jambulinga Pathan and anr. Vs. Akilanda Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad886
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The plaintiff's case is that the suit properties have been endowed by the blacksmiths and Kammala community for conducting certain charities, that they appointed defendants 1 and 2 as trustees and that as the defendant 1 was misconducting himself in managing the trust he was removed and that the plaintiffs were appointed trustees. Consequently they sued for the recovery of the properties from the defendant 1 and for other allied reliefs. They instituted the suit under Order 1, R. S. Civil P. C. Objection was taken in the lower Courts that as the scope of the suit showed that it fell within the purview of Section 92, Civil P. C., and as the plaintiffs had not obtained the requisite sanction under that section, the suit should be dismissed. The first two Courts upheld this plea but the learned Judge (Odgers, J.) in second appeal holding that sanction was not necessary, set aside the lower Court's decision and remanded the case for disposal accord...
Sithambaravadivu Ammal Vs. Thirupalkadanatha Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad56a
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to claim interest and costs. Her deceased husband subscribed to a chit, of which the father of the defendant was the karaiswan. He paid 17 instalments before his death, after which the plaintiff paid the remaining four. The chit closed on 6th April 1919 and. Rs. 2,100 were then due to her. She claimed this sum, but the karaiswan did not discharge till August 1922, his pretext being that till that time her title was in question in a suit brought by her brother-in-law. This pretext did not commend itself to the District Munsif who tried the suit or to the Subordinate Judge who dismissed the first appeal. In second appeal however, Spencer, J., came to the opposite conclusion, finding that the karaiswan was justified in withholding the money till the suit had been concluded.2. The facts are these: The plaintiff's husband died in February 1917. Some months later the plaintiff applied for a succession certificate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »