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.
Venkataraman Vs. Ponnusami Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1023
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The only point that arises in this second appeal has reference to the amount allowed to the defendant as the value of the improvements made by him, the payment of which has been made a condition precedent before the plaintiff is allowed to recover possession of the property. The amount was allowed for the casuarina planted in the land in question. The lease granted by the mother was for ten years. It is in evidence that even before that the defendant has got into possession probably in the course of negotiations or at first on a yearly lease. The transaction was merely voidable. Till it is avoided the lease subsists. The lease was obviously granted for the special purpose of enabling the defendant to raise a casuarina plantation there. If so it cannot possibly be argued that his raising a plantation was done otherwise than in good faith. He had no reason to believe that some next friend, least of all this next friend, would file the suit on behalf of the minor ...
The Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Jerregala Gangadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1001
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am not persuaded that the judgment of the lower appellate Court in this case is wrong. In the plaint itself the grant has been stated by the plaintiff-appellant to partake, at least in part, of a grant for kattu kaluva service Such service has, in the decision referred to and relied upon in the Courts below, been held to be a public service. If the grant was originally made for public service, that is, in other words, service to the villagers and not for private service to the zamindar himself, it follows that the plaintiff cannot resume the inam on the ground that he does not need any longer the service to be performed to him. Though the lower appellate Court has found that it was a grant in lieu of wages on the footing that it was a grant, at any rate partly for public service to be performed for the villagers, it follows that the plaintiff has no right by himself to resume the land terminating the service. Again, in this case the ground on which the argume...
Maruthappan Asari Vs. Marimuthu Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1185; 108Ind.Cas.194
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The only point taken by the learned vakil for the appellant in this case has reference to the possibility of the plaintiff's action being regarded by the Court not as one based on title acquired by adverse possession as was sought to be done in the alternative in both the lower Courts but on a third ground altogether, namely, that the plaintiff, while being lawfully in possession of the property has been deprived of that possession by a wrongful act of defendant. I do not for a moment wish to say that such a suit may not be maintainable apart altogether from the provisions of Section 9, Specific Relief Act. No doubt, if the suit had been instituted under the provisions of that section it would not be open to the defendant to set up any question of title to the property, and all that the Court would be called upon to enquire into and decide would be whether or not the dispossession was due to a wrongful act of the defendant. But if the claim was intended to be s...
Paramanandachary Vs. M. Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad213a
Ramesam, J.1. Under the first part of Section 16, Succession Certificate Act (now Section 381, Succession Act of 1925), the certificate (Ex. B) is conclusive against the debtor [vide, Kuchu Iyer v. Vengu Ammal A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 407].2. The learned vakil for the respondent refers to Section 386, Succession Act of 1925 (S. 22 of Act 7 of 1889), which shows that he need not pay if the certificate is invalid. But I do not see why the certificate is invalid.3. Even if another person, (such as the daughter) turns out to be the heir of the deceased, it does not follow that the certificate is invalid. Section 374 has no bearing in the case.4. The petition is allowed and plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout....
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Iswaram Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.301
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram in C.M.P. No. 253 of 1925 allowing a claim in S.C.S. No. 505 of 1919 on the file of the Tinnevelly Sub-Court. A preliminary point has been taken that this Court cannot interfere by way of revision. I have already discussed the authorities on this question in Veeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali 92 Ind. Cas. 20 : 50 M.L.J. 102 : 22 L.W. 44 (1925) M.W.N. 763 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 18. I think the rule is that this Court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower Court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this Court should not interfere. In the very short order written by the learned District Munsif in this case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the questio...
Paramanandachari Vs. M. Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.431
Ramesam, J.1. Under the 1st part of Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act (now Section 381 of the Succession Act of 1925) the certificate (Ex. B) is conclusive against the debtor [vide, Kuchur Iyer v. Vengu Ammal 93 Ind. Cas. 360 : 50 M.L.J. 432 : (1926) M.W.N. 116 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 407 : 23 L.W. 7282. The learned Vakil for the respondent refers to Section 386 of the Succession Act of 1925 (Section 22 of Act VII of 1889) which shows that he need not pay if the certificate is invalid. But I do not see why the certificate is invalid.3. Even if another person (such as the daughter) turn out to be the heir of the deceased, it does not follow that the certificate is invalid. Section 374 has no bearing in the case.4. The petition is allowed and the plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout....
K.M. Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. at. Ar. Athappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad863; (1927)53MLJ364
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as assignee of a deed of mortgage Ex. A dated the 14th June, 1913 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, his son-in-law. The assignment by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff is Ex. B dated the 20th July, 1914. The 2nd defendant at the time of the execution of Ex. B also executed a security bond Ex. E indemnifying the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant according to the plaint made several payments which are set out in the plaint, amounting in all to Rs. 12,301-0-3 and the present suit is filed for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 6,529-4-6 with costs and further interest. The mortgage deed recites the consideration and also states that two items of property were mortgaged. One is a house in Devakottai and the other is a house in Erode. The house in Erode was purchased under a sale deed Ex. I on the 13th June, 1913 for Rs. 200 and this was included in the deed of mortgage. The property purchased under Ex. I was...
Sri Rajah Rao Sri Swetachelapati Ramakrishna Rangarao Bahadur Garu, Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ619
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is from the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in E.P. No. 44 of 1924, which arose out of a suit filed by one Sodemma against the Maharajah of Bobbili for recovery of a certain land on the ground that it was granted to her husband, who was a Sheristadar of the Estate, as inam. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim, but on appeal to the High Court it was decreed. It is said that an appeal is now pending before the Privy Council. The execution petition was to recover mesne profits for three years before suit and until delivery, or for the years 1913 to 1921. The decree awarded profits at the rate of 6 garces 27 putties per annum but did not fix the rate at which the grain was to be converted into money. This is one of the questions which now arises for decision. The only other question is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in awarding interest.2. The arguments have dealt with three possible rates of conversion:(a) t...
K. Subraya Chetti Vs. Nagappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad805; 103Ind.Cas.150
JUDGEMENTVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the elder brother of defendant 1 who was adjudicated an insolvent and whose estate defendant 2 the Official Assignee represents. The suit is withdrawn against defendant 4. The other defendants are alienees of various items of immovable properties, claiming on the strength of alienations made by or on behalf of defendant 1. Defendants 9, 10 and 11 were on their application removed from the record, the plaintiff not objecting to that course.2. The plaintiff and defendant .1 are the sons of one Ratnavelu Chetti who died on the 29th of December 1913. His father is Ramasami Chetti who died in 1895. A deed of release (also termed partition deed) was executed on the 30th August 1911 by the plaintiff. The joint family properties were valued at Rs. 12,900 and for the plaintiff's one-third share amounting to Rs. 4,300 he was given houses Nos. 15 and 16, Ramanan Street, Madras. On the same date, the plaintiff was made ...
Sri Raja Rao Sri Swetachelapathi Ramakrishna Rangarao Bahadur Garu, Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad954
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is from the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vizagaptam in R. P. 44 of 1924, which arose out of a suit filed by one Sodemma against the Maharaja of Bobilli for recovery of a certain land, on the ground that it was granted to her husband, who was a sheristadar of the estate, as inam. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim, but on appeal to the High Court it was decreed. It is aid that an appeal is now pending before the Privy Council. The execution petition was to recover mesne profits for three years before suit and until delivery, or for the years 1913 to 1921. The decree awarded profits at the rate of 6 garces 27 putties per annum but did not fix the rate at which the grain was to be converted into money. This is one of the questions which now arises for decision. The only other question is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in awarding interest.2. The arguments have dealt with three possible rates of conversion: (a) the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »