Chennai Court January 1928 Judgments
Arunachalam Servai Vs. K. Nottam Beer Varu Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad588; 110Ind.Cas.484
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The point taken and argued with considerable strenuousness by Mr. K.V. Sesha Ayyangar, the learned vakil for the appellant in this second appeal is one of considerable legal interest. The respondent as plaintiff instituted the original suit for levying contribution from the defendant on the ground that both of them having been joint judgment-debtors under a decree, he the plaintiff was compelled to pay for the satisfaction and discharge of that decree the amount claimed in the plaint over and above the amount he was liable to pay as and for his share. The defence raised by the appellant before us was that the debt in respect of which the decree was passed by the Court was really the debt of a partnership in which the plaintiff and the defendant were partners and that therefore, firstly, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for contribution and could, if at all, have only sued for a taking of the partnership accounts, and secondly, that, even if it should be he...
Tag this Judgment!(Sree Rajah Bommadevara) Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. (Sree ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad286
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff has brought these suits against the defendants for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are brothers and owners of the North Vallur Zamindari in respect of which defendant 1 had filed a partition suit which was going on at the time of this suit, having bean filed in 19 L9. The other defendants are the tenants of the estate who filed complaints against the plaintiff for illegal distraint of their property, for non-payment of rent. In the course of the partition suit the plaintiff and defendant 1 entered into a compromise which provides for a large number of matters and inter alia entrusts the management of the estate to the plaintiff. That provision is, however, qualified by Clause 5 which says that the plaintiff should be the manager of the estate until the business mentioned in para. 3 is completed. Para. 3 refers to effecting division by metes and bounds and casting lots regarding the respective shares and after the shares are ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Raja Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Sree Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.797
William Watkin, J.1. The plaintiff has brought these suits against the defendants for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are brothers ami owners of the North Vallur zemindari in respect of which the 1st defendant had filed a partition suit which was going on at the time of this suit, having been filed in 1919. The other defendants are the tenants of the estate who filed complaints against the plaintiff for illegal distraint of their property for non-payment of rent. In the course of the partition suit the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a compromise which provides for a large number of matters and inter alia, entrusts the management of the estate to the plaintiff. That provision is, however, qualified by Clause 5 which says that the plaintiff should be the manager of the estate until the business mentioned in para. 3 is completed. The third paragraph refers to effecting division by metes and bounds and casting lots regarding the respecti...
Tag this Judgment!The Madura Etc. Devasthanams as Represented by the Present Trustee V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.89; (1928)54MLJ625
Wallace, J.1. The decision in this case turns on the interpretation of Section 93 of the District Municipalities Act. The Municipal Council of Madura has demanded profession tax from the Receiver of the Sree Meenakshi Devasthanam in Madura on income received by him from investments of surplus devesthanam funds. The devasthanam paid under protest and instituted this suit for a declaration that it was not liable for the tax and for an injunction to prevent collection. The sum in the suit is trifling, a matter of Rs. 2, but the legal and fiscal question involved is obviously of general importance.2. So much of the decision in the case will turn on the exact wording of Section 93 (1) that it is better to quote it in full. Section 93, Sub-section 1:If the chairman publishes a notification under Section 80, that a profession tax shall be levied, every person, not liable to the companies' tax, who, within the Municipality and for the period laid down in Section 95, exercises after the date sp...
Tag this Judgment!Samudrula Venkatakishnayya Chetty and ors. Vs. Venkadari Rangayya Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad865; 117Ind.Cas.720
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are brothers of defendant 1 and are the appellants before us. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants were members of an undivided family and that defendant 1 executed the note as managing member of the family for family purposes. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that they are members of the undivided family and pleaded a partition in 1910 and also pleaded that the debt was not contracted for family necessity. The Subordinate Judge disbelieved their partition and passed a decree for the amount claimed against the three defendants. To prove the partition the defendants allege that they have put in a list which purports to be a list of the properties which fell to the share of defendants 2 and 3 and that list is signed by all the parties and also by the attesting witnesses. The Subordinate Judge rejected the list as inadmissible for want of registration and on the other...
Tag this Judgment!Pulakam Ramakristnareddi and anr. Vs. Nooney Panakalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1129; 110Ind.Cas.342
Jackson, J.1. Petitioners seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, setting aside the election of petitioner 2 as a Councillor of the Chirala Municipality. Petitioner, was the Chairman of the Municipality at the time of the election, and was accused of corruptly assisting petitioner 2 but that was no reason for including him as a principal party in an election petition. His name should have been struck out at the outset.2. Petitioner 2 who will be referred to as petitioner raises two points. Firstly, the inquiry was vitiated by the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the ballot box to be opened by the respondent and its contents to be generally inspected by him. This was a most improper proceeding, and no justification for it is upon the record. The respondent filed an affidavit to the effect that without seeing the records (the ballot papers) it was impossible for him to proceed with the trial and the Subordinate Judge without obtaining further particulars granted per...
Tag this Judgment!Panchapagesa Gurukkal Vs. Sinna Sevugam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad118
1. Of considerable importance and interest is the main question for consideration in this second appeal. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us are the hereditary gurukkals or official worshippers of the deity in the temple of Sri Dharmambai at Tiruvadi. For the purpose of the discussion of the question raised it is sufficient to indicate the respondents who represent the defence as the managing authority of the institution represented by the dharmakartha, the deceased defendant 1, and those deriving authority from him.2. The object of the action may be briefly stated to be to prevent the demolition of the old shrine and the construction of a new one in its place pursuant to arrangements entered into with regard thereto by the dharmakartha with defendant 3 a gentleman of the Nattukottai Chetty caste apparently of considerable wealth and resources.3. There is apparently no question in the case of the funds of the temple being utilized for the purposes of the proposed renovation...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnan Chettiar Vs. V. Sundaresa Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad322
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by one Chinnan Chettiar who was removed from his office as one of the Dharmakarthas of Sri Anantheswaraswami temple at Chidambaram by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore on application made for that purpose by some of the worshippers at that temple. It is unnecessary to state or discuss the grounds on which such removal was sought. The application for such removal was apparently made under the powers reserved in a scheme framed for the management of the temple in O.S. No. 14 of 22 on the file of the same Court. One curious feature, however, of the matter is that the said Chinnan Chettiar who had, even previously to the scheme suit, been a trustee was virtually removed from office under the decree in the scheme suit but was again appointed as one of the trustees under the scheme newly framed.2. It is not necessary here and now to refer to or criticize such a procedure. The matter has been argued before me as a pure ...
Tag this Judgment!(Vysyan) Kandiyil Kundan Vs. Neelambalatha Andi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad508
Wallace, J.1. This second appeal is against the decision of the lower appellate Court in a suit for title to certain property. The decision of the question at issue depends on whether the families of plaintiffs and defendants who are Tiyyas of Calicut governed by the Makkathayam law follow or do not follow a custom by which joint family estate is not compulsorily partible. The lower appellate Court has held that among the Tiyyas of Calicut the joint family estate is not compulsarily partible.2. The discussion before us has centred mainly on the application of certain decided and reported cases in this Court. That the Tiyyas of Calicut follow the Makkathayam law is not disputed and that is also noted in the local gazetteer. But Makkathayam law means merely a system of inheritance by sons as distinct from Marumakkathayam law, a system of inheritance by daughters and in itself it imports no custom one way or the other on the question of partibility. In Rarichan v. Perachi [1892] 15 Mad. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Vysyam Kandiyal Alias Punathil Kandan Vs. Neelambalathi Andi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.338
Wallace, J.1. This second appeal is against the decision of the lower Appellate Court in a suit for title. The question at issue depends on whether the families of plaintiffs and defendants who are Tiyyas of Calicut governed by the Makkathayam Law, follow or do not follow a custom by which joint family estate is not compulsorily partible. The lower Appellate Court has held that among the Tiyyas of Calicut the joint family estate is not compulsorily partible.2. The discussion before us has centred mainly on the application of certain decided and reported cases in this Court. That the Tiyyas of Calicut follow the Makkathayam Law is not disputed and that is also noted in the Local Gazetteer. But Makkathayam Law means merely a system of inheritance by sons as distinct from Marumakkathayam law, a system of inheritance by daughters, and in itself it imports no custom one way or the other on the question of partibility. In Rarichan v. Perachi 15 M. 281 it was recognised that in several respec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »