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.
Parambarathil Patukkayil Chakkutti and ors. Vs. Kothambra Chandukutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ368
1. The parties to this second appeal are Thiyyas of Calicut following the Makkatayam Law. The sons of the 2nd defendant are the appellants.2. In a suit instituted by the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant and his deceased brother Kelan (O.S. No. 1258 of 1916) he obtained a money decree against the 2nd defendant personally and against defendants 3 to 5, the wife and children of the deceased Kelan. In execution of that decree he attached the family properties in possession of the 2nd defendant. This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted by the appellants for a declaration that the properties attached for the decree in O.S. No. 1258 of 1916 are not liable to be attached and sold for that decree. The Lower Courts overruled the appellants' contention and dismissed their suit.3. In second appeal it is argued that the suit property is impartible according to the Makkatayam Law governing the Thiyyas of Calicut and is not liable to be attached and sold. The question whether the p...
C. N. Eralappa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T. Balakrishniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad710
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a relator's suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed with the sanction of the Advocate-General. The suit property originally belonged to one Kaveri Ammal. By a registered deed dated the 21st September 1914, she dedicated the property to charity appointing two trustees (1), Ramanuja Mudaliar; and (2) Bhashyam Naidu.. It is not disputed that, so far as the language of the deed is concerned, the dedication was complete and that the donor reserved no rights for herself in the property. About seven years after this Kaveri Ammal executed a Will of which Probate has been obtained by the defendant. The latter is not strictly the granddaughter of Kaveri Ammal, because she is only the daughter of Kaveri Ammal's son-in-law. The Will deals with two properties, one of them being the suit property. These two houses are bequeathed to the defendant and she is directed to perform certain charities.. The object of the trust deed of 1914 is the performance...
(Parambarathil) Pattukkayal Chakutti and ors. Vs. Kothembra Chandukutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad877
1. The parties to this second appeal are Thiyyas of Calicut following the Makkathayam Law, The sons of defendant 2 are the appellants. In a suit instituted by the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 and his deceased brother Kelan (O. S. 1258 of 1916) he obtained a money decree against the defendant 2 personally and against defendants 3-5, the wife and children of the deceased Kelan. In execution of that decree he attached the family properties in possession of defendant 2. This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted by the appellants for a declaration that the properties attached for the decree in O. S. 1258 of 1916 are not liable to be attached and sold for that decree. The lower Courts overruled the appellants' contention and dismissed their suit.2. In second appeal it is argued that the suit property is impartible according to the Makkathayam Law governing the Thiyyas of Calicut and is not liable to be attached and sold. The question whether the property is impartible or no...
Gurijala Pedda Venkatayya Vs. Komerla Kistappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad340
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal which has arisen from proceedings under the Estates Land Act. The plaintiff in substance sued the defendant for the recovery of certain water rates on the ground that the defendant illegally used water of the shortriem, to which he (the plaintiff) was entitled as the shrotriemdar, for irrigating dry land belonging to the defendant. Because the plaint is headed as a suit under Section 77 of the Act the learned vakil for the appellant has taken the contention that this cannot be regarded as a suit for arrears of rent and therefore the suit was not maintainable. At one stage of his argument I was not certain whether his argument was going to be that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but apparently the question of jurisdiction was not taken in the lower Courts and was not in that form even suggested in the written statement. The way in which the learned vakil for the appellant put his a...
T.R. Govinda Chetty Vs. Rangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad261
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Judge on the original side granting a review of the judgment and amending the decree. The order appealed against is printed on p. 14 of the printed papers. It runs as follows:1. That the said decree dated 3rd February 1926, be amended by including therein the following clauses, viz,:(a) That defendant 6 is entitled to provision for residence in house and premises No. 41, Badrian Street.(b) That the room marked A in red pencil in the plan attached hereto and situate between the 1st and the 2nd compartments of the said house be allotted for use of defendant 6 as a kitchen, eating room, store room, etc., and that the room marked B in the said plan and situate in front adjoining the street verandah be allotted for living, sleeping, etc.(c) That defendant 6 be also entitled to the use of the common passages, pipes, lavatory, washing places, etc.(d) That defendant 6 shall have no right to let or sub-let the portion al...
M.K.L.M. Muthiah Chettiar and ors. Vs. P. Loka Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1007; (1927)53MLJ504
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this revision petition arises was filed in the Small Causes Court, Madras, in April, 1924 against three defendants on a hundi. 2nd defendant is the maker of a hundi. It was drawn in favour of the 3rd defendant who endorsed it in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was impleaded on account of a varthamanam letter, Ex. B, executed by him when the plaintiff alleged that the hundi was presented at Rangoon and was dishonoured. The 1st defendant is sued on the ground that he had opened a shop in Madras and leave to sue was obtained against the others. Along with the suit an application for attachment before judgment was also filed against the 1st defendant and some goods belonging to him were attached. The 1st defendant appeared and got the goods released. The case was then posted to 24th July. On that day Mr. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar appearing for the plaintiff asked for time to state his defence. He also undertook to file a vakalat for the 2nd defend...
Ramakrishna Doss Chandrathna Doss Vs. P. Kesavalu Chetty and Three ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ179
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff sues on an equitable mortgage. The 1st defendant created the mortgage and as he has become an insolvent, the 4th defendant the Official Assignee now represents his estate. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant holds a subsequent mortgage.2. The first point I have to decide is the one that has been raised on behalf of the 2nd defendant. I must clearly point out that this point has not been urged either by the 1st, the 3rd or the 4th defendants. They have expressly said they do not desire to urge that contention. The mortgage was created by deposit of title deeds. It now transpires that the 2nd defendant is in possession of a portion of the title deeds relating to this property. He produces them in Court and contends that as the deposit was not of all the title deeds a valid equitable mortgage could not have been created.3. To deal with this argument, it is necessary in the first instance to examine whether it was a s...
Kodali Narayana Vs. Kalluri Sudarsanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1184; 108Ind.Cas.193
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. With regard to all items in the schedule to the plaint other than 6 and 18 the appeal is clearly not sustainable. The appellant who is the plaintiff in the lower Court instituted the suit for recovery of possession of various items on the ground that, after the death of the widow of the last male holder, he became, as the reversioner, entitled to all these properties. It has been found by the Court that a previous suit, O. S. 370 of 1889 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Bapatla, has been instituted on behalf of this very plaintiff, when he was a minor, by his mother as next friend.2. In that suit a compromise was entered into as the result of which it was decreed that the plaintiff should get possession immediately of some portion of the property belonging to the estate of the last male holder and that the alienations so far effected by the widow should not be liable to be called into question by the plaintiff and also further that the plaintiff would...
Kumarappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Podisal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad667; (1927)53MLJ146
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Collector under Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act on a revision filed before him from an appraisement proceeding by the Deputy Collector under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act. The points for decision before the Collector were, first of all, whether the application on the facts found by the Deputy Collector would lie under Section 74 of the Act, and whether the applicant was the person entitled to ask for the appraisement assuming that the facts were in existence which would entitle the landlord to invoke Section 74. The Deputy Collector heard the evidence and allowed the application of the petitioner here. The Collector in revision was of opinion that the applicant was not entitled to file the application but he set aside the order of the Deputy Collector in respect of certain of the lands referred to in the order on the ground that the tenants denied that the landlord had any right to col...
Mallapudi Venkatarayudu Vs. Mallina Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad862
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff succeeded in the Court of first instance but his suit was dismissed by this Court and he is the applicant before us. There is no dispute that the subject-matter of the suit was over Rs. 10,000. The question we have to decide is, what is the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council? Is it Rs.10,000 or upwards or less than Rs. 10,000.2. We called for a report from the lower Court and that report has now been received. According to it, the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal is only Rs. 7,066.3. First dealing with Sch. A to the plaint, we are concerned with ten items. We shall first deal with four of them, namely, items 17, 20, 21 and 22 which are Zamindari Jeroyiti lands. In respect of these plots the plaintiff gave their market value in the plaint itself. He valued them at the date of the suit at Rs. 150 an acre. The question arises. Is the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »