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.
Kumarapa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Podisal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.664
1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Collecter under Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act on a revision filed before him from an appraisement proceedings 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 collect melwaram and tha...
Yahya Ally Saheb and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad97; (1927)53MLJ769
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to collect any water-rate, road-cess or other cesses in respect of any of the plaintiffs' lands in the village of Bhuj Bhuj, Nellore, irrigated under Lingala Cheruvu and Patha Cheruvu.2. The defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is entitled to impose water-cess under Act VII of 1865 (the Madras Irrigation Cess Act), when certain conditions are fulfilled, but road-cess is levied by the District Boards under the Local Boards Act of 1920 and not by the Secretary of State for India in Council. So far as the suit relates to the road cess, the suit does not lie and must be dismissed, except as to any increment in the road-cess consequent on the imposition of water-cess. But the second appeal was argued only in respect of water-cess.3. The District Munsif gave a decree. On appeal the District Judge reversed the District Munsif's decision and dismissed the plaintiffs' su...
Tatanagowdra Bhimana Gowd and ors. Vs. Patel Siddalingana Gowd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad898
Odgers, J.1. The former of these is a petition to raise the order of the learned Acting District Judge of Bellary and the latter to revise the order of the District Munsif of Bellary. They both relate to the same matter and have been argued together.2. The facts are as follows: O. S. No. 199 of 1916 was a suit on a mortgage executed to the respondent by the brother of the petitioners. The respondent obtained a decree. There was a sale in execution of the decree and the decreeholder bought the properties in execution, To this proceeding and suit the petitioners were not parties. They, the brothers of the mortgagor, obstructed the decree-holder when he came to take possession of the property alleged to have been included in the mortgage. On the petition of the mortgagee in E. A. No. 87 of 1918 the petitioners' obstruction was removed on the 4th April 1918 and he was placed in possession of all the lands and a claim order under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil P. C. was made thereon. The petition...
C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T. Balakrishnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ183
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 7 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 arc bequeathed to the defendant and she is directed to perform certain charities. The object of the trust deed of 1914 is the performance of utsa...
V.R.S.S. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. P.L.N.K. Subramaniam Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad834; (1927)53MLJ269
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly in I. A. No. 211 of 1926 adding a second plaintiff to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10.2. A Court has a large discretion under this order, and 1 should deprecate any attempt to diminish that discretion by substituting special pronouncements in special cases for the actual language of the rule. The Court may add any person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. A question involved in a suit is a question which will come out when the case is opened.3. In Montgomery v. Foy (1895)2 QB 321 a shipowner was not paid his freight by the shipping agents, so he put the cargo in a warehouse with notice that it was subject to a lien for freight. The agents deposited the amount under protest. The shipowner sued for the deposit. Then the real owners of the cargo for whom the shippi...
Narayannan Nair and ors. Vs. Paru Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.593; (1928)54MLJ600
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 7 to 24 are the appellants in this second appeal. They instituted the suit for the recovery of certain property now admitted to be in possession of the 1st defendant. The question whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the property or not is it is now practically clear, dependant on whether one Krishnakutty Nair who was the person from or through whom the 1st defendant ultimately claims was at the time of the transactions the Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad. The whole controversy in this case both in the court of first instance and in the first appellate court ranged round the question whether or not this Krishnakutty Nair was the karnavan, it apparently being conceded that, if he was the karnavan and the presumption was available to the plaintiffs that the property dealt with by the karnavan was the tarwad property, there was no sufficient evidence on the record to show that it was separate property. No doubt the lower app...
Narayana Aiyangar and ors. Vs. K. Vellachami Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad583
ORDERWaller, J.1. Petitioners were subscribers to a chit fund. They sued to recover from the stakeholder Rs. 36, being the amount paid by them for 18 instalments at Rs. 2 a month. The defendants set up the usual dishonest plea that the fund was a lottery and their plea was accepted by the lower Court.2. Two questions arise:(1) Whether the fund is a lottery;(2) If it is, whether the subscriptions are recoverable.3. On both of these questions there is a great conflict of authority. The cardinal feature of this fund and of all the other funds dealt with in the decisions cited before me is this that lots are drawn for prizes monthly and that the winners get Rs. 50, the full amount of the chit without any liability for further subscriptions. After the 50th drawing, the unsuccessful subscribers get back the full amount of their subscriptions, but without interest.4. On the first question, Phillips, J., held in Sankunni v. Ikkora Kirtti : (1919)37MLJ209 that a chit fund of this description wa...
M. R. Venkatarama Ayyar and anr. Vs. South Indian Bank of Tinnevelley ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad927a
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam dismissing petitioner's (appellants) application for execution in respect of certain interest. The question arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner apparently obtained a decree in O. S. 26 of 1910 against one Nataraja Ayyar, and an order for the payment of Rs. 20,000, odd in rateable distribution. Subsequently the respondents filed O. S. 22 of 1913 calling in question the validity of petitioner's decree and for an injunction to prevent petitioner from drawing, the Rs. 20,000. They also applied for and obtained an interim injunction from the subordinate judge. Petitioner appealed to this Court and on 16th January 1914 the Court made the following order Ex. A (p. 2). The respondent's suit, No. 22 of 1913, was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 22nd December 1915, and on appeal the High Court ordered a new trial on 19th October 1916. Previously on 28th January 1916, the respondents...
S. N. Thiruvikrama Ayyar and anr. Vs. Vyapuri Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1028
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. There has been a great deal of learned discussion in the course of the argument of this appeal on both sides, but it has ultimately turned out that the case has to be disposed of not on any consideration of any difficult questions of law or construction of statute but merely on a construction of the document itself bearing on the question. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff who was suing for redemption was not barred by reason of Art. 134, Schedule 2, Limitation, Act. The argument for the defendants-appellants before me was that both the lower Courts erred in holding that that article did not apply. In the view that I have taken of this case it seems to me that at the present stage it is unnecessary to discuss any of the various decisions that have been cited at the Bar. I may, however, briefly refer only to one point. The corresponding article in the Limitation Act of 1871 contained the expression 'good faith' and the corresponding article in t...
Gudipoodi Subbayya and anr. Vs. Kotapalli Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad48a
Odgers, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the District Munsif of Ongole, dated 17th April 1923, wherein he framed a decree in terms of a certain award. The petitioners (defendants 3 and 4) are the reversioners of one Kottayya. The suit was brought against them by the plaintiff on a mortgage by Kotayya's widow and was filed after her death. The mortgagees were the pre-decessors-in-title of defendants 1 and 2, and the plaintiff is an assignee from them. The question in the suit was whether the mortgage was binding on the reversioner and the parties are alleged to have agreed to refer the matter to arbitration under Schedule 2, para 1, Civil P.C. Defendants 1 and 4, were minors when the suit commenced. We are not concerned with the first of these. The latter was represented by his mother in the suit and the first question raised before us is that as his guardian ad litem did not sign the petition to refer the suit to arbitration dated 6th October 1922, there has not, at le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »