Chennai Court April 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.
S.P.S.A.L. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.620
Jackson, J.1. This petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta allowing an amendment of the written statement on condition of defendant's paying plaintiff Rs. 150 by way of costs. Defendant paid the money which was taken by plaintiff's Vakil 'under protest' as he intended to challenge the order in this Court.2. Respondent raises a preliminary point whether plaintiff, having taken the money although under protest, is not estopped from questioning the order.3. It has long been recognized that where a party accepts costs under a Judge's order, which, but for the order, would not at that time be payable, he cannot afterwards object that the order was made without jurisdiction. King v. Simmonds (1846) 7 Q.B. 289 : 115 E.R. 493 and Tinkler v. Hilder (1849) 4 Ex. 187 : 7 D. & L. 61 : 18 L.J. Ex. 429 : 13. Jur. 684 : 154 E.R. 1176. This ruling was followed in Banku Chandra Bose v. Marium Begum 37 Ind. Cas. 804 : 21 C.W.N. 232 in circumstances similar to those of the pre...
Sannidhiraju Subbarayadu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ868
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover from the defendant who is the Secretary of State for India in Council Rs. 8-13-2 being the water tax collected from the plaintiff by the defendant's officers and paid under protest and now alleged by the plaintiff to be illegally collected. The plaintiff is the pujari of a certain temple which owns a darmila inam, 12 acres and odd in extent. The inam was included in the assets of the zamindari of Guttenadivi at the time of the permanent settlement and was granted to the temple subsequent to it. Hence the word 'darmila' inam (that is, subsequent inam), as opposed to inams granted prior to the settlement and excluded from the assets of a permanently settled estate and afterwards enfranchised by the inam rules in 1861 to 1864. Thus, the suit land is not an enfranchised inam and is part of the zamindari lands of Guttenadivi. The zamindari of Guttenadivi is a small zamindari paying a peishcush of Rs. 651 in Amalapur taluk (vid...
Sankunni Panikkar Vs. Rama Panikkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad346
1. Defendant 4 in his written statement pleaded that Chathakot was a branch of Parappathodi and also pleaded that Chathakot was never divided from Parappathodi. Issue 1 dealt with this plea of defendant 4 and the second part of the issue raised the point whether Chathakot was a portion of Parappathodi, It is true that in the issue it meant undivided portion as shown by the contrast to the former part of the issue. Still it raised the question whether, divided or undivided, it was really an off-shoot of Parappathodi.2. The Subordinate Judge found in para 3 that all the four tarwads including Chathakot are separate but he gave no date for the separation of Chathakot. The earliest of the documents he refers to is dated 1894 Ex JJ. In the next para. 4 he took up the question whether Chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an offshoot of Parappathodi. We do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding. We agree with Phillips, J., in accepting...
Sankunni Pannikar Vs. Rama Pannikar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.429
1. The 4th defendant in his written statement pleaded that chathakot was a branch of Parappathodi and also pleaded that chathakot was never divided from Parappathodi. The first issue dealt with this plea of the 4th defendant and the second part of the issue raised the point whether chathakot was a portion of Parappathodi. It is true that in the issue it meant undivided portion as shown by the contract to the former part of the issue. Still it raised the question whether, divided or undivided, it was really an off-shoot of Parappathodi.2. The Subordinate Judge found in para. 3 that all the four tarwads including chathakot are separate but he gave no date for the separation of chathakot. The earliest of the documents he refers to is dated 1894 Ex. JJ. In the next para. 4 he took up the question whether chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an off-shoot of Parappathodi. We do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding.3. We agree with P...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. T.S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad919; (1927)53MLJ422
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the Lower Court in a matter of execution. The petitioner put in an execution petition praying for the arrest of his judgment-debtor (respondent). The respondent urged that he is still an insolvent and that the proceedings in insolvency are still pending, that the petitioner has not got permission of the Insolvency Court to open execution proceedings against him and that therefore the petition is not maintainable. The respondent was adjudicated insolvent on 6th January, 1921. The petitioner, however, claims that the insolvency proceedings have come to an end since the respondent applied for and was refused a final discharge on 30th October, 1923. The petitioner put in a petition for review of that order which was dismissed on 15th March, 1924. The present execution petition was put in on 30th April, 1925. It is admitted that the respondent's adjudication has not been annulled.2. The question for decision is, does the ref...
Kulandaivelu Pillai Vs. Venkatarayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ808
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit brought by one Kulandaivelu Pillai, the adopted son of Muthukumara Pillai, for the recovery of possession of the suit lands which, as he alleged, had been trespassed upon by the 2nd defendant in October, 1914. The appeal really hinges on the effect, if any, to be given to Ex. 1. Ex. I. purports to be a sale deed, dated 8th June, 1899, executed by Muthukumara Pillai, in favour of his son-in-law Ramaswami Pillai, the 1st defendant, and, as alleged by the plaintiff, was a benami sale-deed with no consideration. It was executed for a certain purpose set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The defence of the 1st defendant was that the sale-deed, Ex. I, was a perfectly valid deed and a proper price had Been paid for the lands in question. The finding of the District Munsif is that no consideration was paid by the 1st defendant for Ex. I and that when it was executed it was intended only to be a nominal transaction. That being so, the learned District Munsif went on...
Subbiah thevar Vs. Ponnuswami Thalavar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1021
1. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies. We think it must be upheld. The order under appeal is an order giving permission to the respondent to adduce in the District Court evidence which that Court had refused time to the respondent to call. The District Court's order was of an interlocutory nature and it has not yet passed judgment in the suit. The question we have to decide is whether the order of the learned Chief Justice is a final judgment or order within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent. It appears to us that it cannot be so styled. It is merely an order allowing the evidence to be adduced. It is contended for the appellant that it is an order for a new trial, the old trial having been virtually closed. It appears to us that to speak of the adducing of fresh evidence in a trial, as if it were a new trial, is straining language too far. It is also urged that the order under appeal has finally put an end to the appellant's right to have the trial closed in...
Atmakuri Seetharamamurthi and ors. Vs. Jammulu Rangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad293
1. Defendant 1, who is the father of defendants 2 to 6, executed a mortgage for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the plaintiffs' deceased father purporting to mortgage his self-acquired property. The plaintiffs sought to make the sons also liable under this mortgage, but the District Judge has held that defendant 1 did not purport to mortgage the ancestral property and the mortgagee did not contemplate the ancestral property as forming part of his security, and has given a decree only against defendant 1's share in the mortgaged property which has been found to be the ancestral and not the self-acquired property of defendant 1. In Audimula Mudali v. Alemelu Ammal [1916] 2 M.W.N. 115, a case to which one of us was a party, it was held, in the case of a similar mortgage, that the Court should incline to the view that a transferrer alienated the property in the capacity most favourable to a bona fide purchaser. Applying that principle here, defendant 1 must be deemed to have mortgaged the property ...
Vege Ramayya and anr. Vs. Avatapalli Suryanarayanamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ464
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The suits in these two Second Appeals were instituted by the plaintiff to set aside the alienations of his property made by his father during his minority. The plaintiff, his two brothers and his father made a division of the family properties. The share that was allotted to the plaintiff was burdened with some debts. As the plaintiff was a minor at that time, his family affairs were looked after by his father as his guardian. To pay the debts due by the plaintiff, his father borrowed money from one Kanthamma under a mortgage, Ex. G-l, in 1906 and to pay off Kanthamma money was raised by executing sale deeds, Exs. C and D, of the plaintiffs property for a total consideration of Rs. 840. The defendants in the two suits who are the appellants in these Second Appeals represent the alienees.2. The plaintiff's case is that these alienations are not binding on him. He contended that the debt due to Kanthamma under Ex. G-l was discharged later on in 1915 by selling propert...
Cuddappa Ghouse Khan Vs. Bala Subba Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad925; (1927)53MLJ412
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act wherein the appellant asked for leave to prosecute his suit--O.S. No. 43 of 1924--on the file of the Sub-Court, 'Bellary. It appears that on the 30th July, 1921 one Bala Subba Rowther, the respondent in the petition to the District Judge of Coimbatore, was adjudicated insolvent. On the 9th June, 1924 a suit was instituted in the Bellary Sub-Court on a promissory note which had been executed on 14th May 1921 by the insolvent to a third party and which in March, 1924 was transferred to the appellant here. The plaintiffs in the suit are said to have only become aware of the insolvency of Bala Subba Rowther when the latter filed his written statement. They have therefore applied to the Coimbatore Court which is the Insolvency Court for leave to prosecute the suit which, as stated, was refused on the ground that...