Chennai Court May 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.
In Re: Veerabadra Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ696
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioners, 54 in number, were convicted of forming members of an unlawful assembly, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, by the Taluk Magistrate of Sivaganga, and these convictions were confirmed on appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai. For the purposes of this revision petition the following facts may be accepted. Sevalkanmoi, to which the petitioners belong, is a proprietary village and possesses a tank which irrigates their lands. The tank is fed by a channel, and a dispute arose with the ryots of Thevadiakanom village which is included in the Sivaganga Zamindari as to the right to the supply of water through this channel. The latter ryots erected a bund, marked BB, in the Commissioner's plan, which had the effect of diverting the water from the Sevalkanmoi tank and leading it to Thevadiakanom lands. The proprietor of Sevalkanmoi sued the ryots of Thevadiakanom(O.S. No. 107 of 1923) and obtained a decree directing them to remove the bund ...
Edavalath Potayur Manakkal Maheswaram Nambudripad Karnavan and Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ154a
1. The legal representative of the judgment-debtor is the appellant. The question for decision is whether the execution application presented by the respondent on 4th April, 1923 is barred by limitation. The facts are these : The original judgment-debtor, one Narayanan Nambudripad, died. On his death, execution was taken in 1917 against his legal representative, Vasudevan Nambudripad. He also died. In 1920 by Ex. B execution was then taken against his legal representative Maheswaram Nambudripad. This execution petition was dismissed for non-payment of batta for notice. The petition out of which this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises was presented on 4th April, 1923, within 3 years from the last application and on the last day of the 12th year from the date of the second appeal decree. In this application the respondent showed the deceased Vasudevan as the counter-petitioner and not Maheswaram as he should have done. The notice was returned with the endorsement that the counter-petition...
(Upputuri) Punnayya and anr. Vs. (Polavarapur) Lingayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad496
Ramesam, J.1. In revision petition, I am bound by the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the compromise was, as a fact, entered into by the plaintiff. I may add that I am of opinion that the postcards Exs. B and C are genuine and therefore, agree with his finding.2. The razinama is that the suit should be withdrawn. This razinama is certainly not bidding on plaintiff 2. The question is whether plaintiff 1 should be held to be bound by St. Mr. Raghava Rao at first contended that plaintiff 1 is bound by it so far as his share is concerned. But this amounts to splitting, up the compromise into two separate-compromises and the facts do not justify it. The decision in Venkata Rao v. Tuljaram Row A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 69 shows that no portion of the joint estate is bound by the compromise. Mr. Raghava Rao then contended that plaintiff 2 may press his claim for the whole of the suit property and he would limit his contention to plaintiff 1 only and not his share of the property. But this seems ...
Rajah D.K. Thimmanayanim Bahadur Varu, Rajah of Kalahasti and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad713
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. All these appeals relate to the recovery of allowances payable out of the Kalahasti estate. Appeals Nos. 28, 39 and 387 are from O.S. No. 50 of 1916 and 58, 69 and 70 are from O.S. No. 86 of 1916 and all relate to the allowance payable to one Chennappa, the father of the plaintiff, in O.S. No. 86 of 1916; whereas the remaining appeals, Nos. 280, 288, 352 and 353, relate to an allowance granted to one Lakshmikantamma, widow of the Rajah Venkatappa, by his will in 1894. These latter will be dealt with after considering the first batch of appeals. One Venkatappa, Rajah of Kalahasti, died in 1881 leaving a will whereby he left the estate to his eldest son Muthu Venkaappa and granted allowances to his other sons. In 1890 the second son Timma filed a suit against Rajah Muthu Venkatappa for partition of the estate alleging that it was joint family property and not an impartible estate. This suit was compromised and a decree passed therein on 30th March 1893, whereby it ...
Bada Krishtam Naidu Vs. Duvvada Patrusdu Alias Janakiramayya Chowdhari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.405
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Ganjam on two Execution Petitions, namely, 39 of 1916 and 68 of 1916. In the former Kamalanatham Naidu was the petitioner as transferee and benamidar of the late Parasuramayya Chowdhari stated to be the real owner of the decree. Kamalanatham Naidu having died, the real owner's undivided son Nandesam Chowdhari, a minor, represented by his next friend Duvvada Butchamma, was the petitioner, and the respondents were Duvvada Patrudu alias Janakiramayya Chowdhari and Duvvada Gusayi Chowdhari In E.P. No. 68 of 1916 the undivided brother of Kamalanatham Naidu, transferee, is the petitioner and the respondents are the same as in E.P. No. 39 of 1916. The learned District Judge, whose predecessor held that the question which of these two rival petitioners can execute the decree is one to be decided under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code decided on the merits that the brother of Kamalanatham Naidu is not entitled to ...
In Re: Veerabhadra Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.657
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioners 54 in number were convicted of forming members of an unlawful assembly, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, by the Taluk Magistrate of Sivaganga, and these convictions were confirmed on appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai. For the purposes of this revision petition the following facts may be accepted. Sevalkanmoi, to which the petitioners belong, is a proprietary village and possesses a tank which irrigates their land3. The tank is fed by a channel, and a dispute arose with the ryots of Thevadiakanom village which is included in the Sivaganga zemindari as to the right to the supply of water through this channel. The latter ryots erected a bund, marked BB in the Commissioner's plan, which had the effect of diverting the water from the Sevalkanmoi tank and leading it to Thevadiakanom lands. The proprietor of Sevalkanmoi sued the ryots of Thevadaikanom (O.S. No. 107 of 1925) and obtained a decree directing them to remove the bund BB...
Edavalath Potayur Manakkal Maheswaran Nambudripad Karnavan and Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.303
1. The legal representative of the judgment-debtor is the appellant. The question for decision is whether the execution application presented by the respondent on 4th April, 1923, is barred by limitation.2. The facts are these: the original judgment-debtor one Narayanan Nambudripad died. On his death, execution was taken in 1917, against his legal representative Vasudevan Nambudripad. He also died. In 1920, as per Ex. B execution was then taken against his legal representative Maheswaran Nambudripad. This execution petition was dismissed for non-payment of patta for notice. The petition out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was presented on 4th April, 1923, within three years from the last application and on the last day of the 12th year from the date of the second appeal decree. In this application the respondent showed the deceased Vasudevan as the counter-petitioner and not Maheswaran as he should have done. The notice was returned with the endorsement that the ...
(Puppala) Pichayya Vs. Mittapalli Sarvayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1118
Devadoss, J.1. The only point for consideration in this second appeal is whether plaintiff 1, Sarvayya, is entitled to the estate of Subbayya by right of survivorship. There were three brothers, Mangayya, Subbayya and Seshayya. They divided their properties in 1894. Seshayya was then a minor. He attained majority in 1896 and died in 1897. His widow adopted plaintiff 1, the only son of Subbayya. Subbayya is now dead. Sarvayya, plaintiff 1, claims the estate of Subbayya by right of survivorship. He put forward three contentions in the District Munsif's Court.2. 1. That he was a Dwamushyayana son of both Subbayya and Seshayya.3. 2. That at the partition of 1894 Mangayya, separated from the family, and Subbayya and Seshayya, continued to be members of joint Hindu family and 3. That he and Subbayya entered into an agreement whereby they both became members of a joint Hindu family. All the three points were found against plaintiff 1 by the District Munsif. On appeal the Subordinate Judge agr...
Chinna Nadar Vs. A.B.V. Arumugham Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1196
1. The respondent sued the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 2,293-6-3 with interest and costs. The suit was eventually compromised. By the compromise it was agreed that the appellant was to pay to the respondent Rs. 2,100 in two months from 9th March 1925, that is to say, on or before 9th May 1925. In default, the whole amount claimed in the suit was to be paid by him with interest and costs. It was, of course, the intention that the money should be paid on or before the due date. Where a litigant agrees to accept a lesser sum than is due to him in consideration of payment within a fixed period, time is of the essence of the contract. In this case, however, the parties overlooked the fact that the Court would be closed for the vacation before 9th May. The appellant took advantage of that fact to delay payment till 11th June when the Court re-opened, thus extending the period of two months by one month and two days. The question is whether he was entitled to this advantage. Both the lo...
S.V. Kailasanatha Ayyar Vs. M. Nallasivam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad361
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application by a trustee of Sri Krishnaswami Temple at Ambasamudram to set aside an order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly passed under Section 78, Madras Religious Endowments Act, 1927. The first contention raised before me is that the petitioner had no notice of the application and the learned District Judge passed an order ex parte without sending notice to the petitioner or getting any explanation from him. The respondent was only appointed as an additional trustee of the temple and at best he would be only entitled to joint possession with the petitioner. The order, as drawn up, directs the petitioner to hand over charge of Sri Krishnaswami Temple and other minor temples attached to it with all the properties belonging to them. I consider the order illegal because it was passed without giving notice to the person who was to be bound by it. It is an elementary principle of law that no order should be passed which prejudices a person without giving him a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »