Chennai Court December 1928 Judgments
Ayyaswami Iyer Vs. Mahadeva Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.57
William Watkins Phillips, J.1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Gurunatha Iyer impleading numerous other defendants who have not appealed. The plaintiffs claimed to be the reversioners and this fact was disputed by the defendants but they only put plaintiffs to proof of it. P.W. Nos. 1 to 7 have all given evidence on the point and their evidence has been believed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Certain criticisms have been put forward in this Court which contain nothing of sufficient importance as to discredit the testimony of the witnesses who have been believed by the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing them give their evidence. It is also significant that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were not prepared to go into the witness-box and swear that the plaintiffs were not members of their family, a fact which must be within their knowledge. We must, therefore, accept the finding that the plaintiffs are re...
Tag this Judgment!Jayarama Naidu and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad441; 118Ind.Cas.490
Jackson, J.1. The appellants sued the Secy. of State for a declaration that they were entitled both to a small triangle of land for which penal assessment had been levied by the defendant; and also to a shed and its site lying between this land and their house. They described the suit property as lying within the village natham. It has been found that the small triangle lies in tank poramboka and cannot be claimed by plaintiffs, and in regard to that portion the appeal is not pressed.2. The District Munsif found that the plaintiffs are entitled to the other portions (C and D in the plan Ex. 3). The lower appellate Court reversed that finding and dismissed the suit. In respect to this latter portion the plaintiffs appeal.3. The title set up in the plaint is that plaintiffs and their ancestors had been enjoying the property for more than a 100 years. The lower Courts have found that plaintiffs did not prove enjoyment for more than 30 years. That finding is not disputed; but plaintiffs co...
Tag this Judgment!Pakkiamuthu Nadar and ors. Vs. R. Kanagasabapathy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad523; 117Ind.Cas.134
1. These are appeals from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Tinnevelly, in first appeals in 22 summary suits tried by the Honorary Deputy Collector of Tinnevelly under the Estates Land Act. The suits were brought by ryots for commutation of rent under Section 40 of the Act.2. The Deputy Collector has carefully-gone into the relevant facts bearing upon the rent, but in all these suits except four viz., those in S.A. Nos. 630, 640, 642, 647 of 1926, in which no such rent was paid, he has ignored the circumstances that cash or kattukuthagai rents had prevailed between the landholder and ryot for certain periods previous to the suits. He says in his 23rd para. that these rents are of recent dates and cannot be taken as a basis. On the other hand the learned District Judge has entirely based his conclusions on calculations founded upon these rents, ignoring the other matters inquired into by the Deputy Collector. Neither of these methods can be commended. The Collector is bound...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuraju Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Mahammad Ghonse Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.244
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question is one of construction and presents no difficulty. The surety says in clear terms that his liability extends to paying the amount claimed in the suit, in the event of a decree being passed. The words that follow this clause are even, clearer, He says that it must be deemed as if a decree is passed against himself and the surety bond is to take effect accordingly. How in the face of these clear words, the District Judge came to the conclusion, that the surety bond is only for the appearance of the defendant, I am at a loss to make out. Mr. Thanikachalam Chettiar, Counsel for the respondent, contends that the surety bond goes beyond the terms of Order XXXVIII, Rule 2. It is unnecessary for me to decide whether it is absolutely necessary that the surety bond should in every case strictly comply with the terms of that provision. In this case, however, the question does not arise; for the Court never had to apply its mind to the terms of the bond at all, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasalingam Asari Vs. Nallayan Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad295; 118Ind.Cas.511
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this Civil Revision Petition is that the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for subscriptions, and reliance is placed upon the decision of my learned brother Wallace, J., in Rama Pillai v. Pulasthiam Pillai A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 330. That case is distinguishable from the facts of this case. For a long time the defendant and his ancestors have been paying the subscription and on the strength of the subscription expenses were incurred in celebrating a festival in the temple. That being so, there is an implied contract to pay the amount from time to time. I hold that this suit is not exempted from the cognizance of the Village Panchayat Court and therefore this point cannot be sustained.2. The next point is, the direction that the future payments should be paid regularly, is illegal. This is in the nature of a decree for maintenance directing future payments to be paid for all time. This is clearly illegal. Such a suit would not l...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. P. Muthuswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.609; (1929)56MLJ657
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant. They conducted a partnership business, at first in conjunction with the 4th defendant, and subsequently as a family partnership consisting of themselves alone. Misunderstandings arose in 1920 and plaintiff refused to continue in the business and finally expressed his determination to become separated in status and to dissolve the partnership. It has been found in the Lower Court that this separation in status and the dissolution of partnership took place on the 31st December, 1921, and this is not now disputed. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of his share in the family property and in the partnership assets. He has obtained a decree for one-fourth share in the partnership assets as they stood on the 31st December, 1921 and for one-fourth share of the immoveable and moveable properties belonging to the family. So far as his share of the partnership assets is concerned, he has been awarded interes...
Tag this Judgment!Mundancheri Koman Vs. (Thachangath Puthan Vittal) Achuthan Nair and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad308
Phillips, J.1. In these petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council a preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies as the order of this Court is in the nature of an interlocutory order and is not final order within the meaning of Section 109, Civil P C. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs under Section 92, Civil P.C. alleging that the suit temples are private temples and that the defendants as trustees were liable to account for alleged breach of trust and asking for the framing of a scheme. The only issue that was tried in the lower Court was whether the suit temples were private temples or public temples and it was found that they were private temples. On appeal to this Court that finding was upset, it being held that the suit temples were public temples. It is contended for the petitioners that the order of the Court was a final adjudication between the parties and finally determined the right of the defendants and therefore it is final within the meaning ...
Tag this Judgment!Mundarcheri Koman Alias Mundancheri Mootha Nair Vs. Thachangath Puthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.300
ORDER1. In these petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council a preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies as the order of this Court is in the nature of an interlocutory order and is not a final order within the meaning of Section 109, Civil Procedure Code. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging that the suit temples were public temples and that the defendants, as trustees, were liable to account for alleged breach of trust and asking for the framing of a scheme. The only issue that was tried in the lower Court was whether the suit temples were private temples or public temples and it was found that they were private temples. On appeal to this Court that finding was upset, it being held that the suit temples were public temples. It is contended for the petitioners that the order of the Court was a final adjudication between the parties and finally determined the rights of the defendants and, therefore, it i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Assan Musaliarakath Kunhi Bava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ550
ORDERJackson, J.1. The accused is clearly proved to have deliberately fabricated and used a false endorsement on a pro-note, for his defence in the suit upon the note, and was rightly convicted under Sections 193, 196 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 300. He did not appeal. When the statute lays down that for a certain offence, as for that under Section 471, Indian Penal Code or under Section 193, the punishment shall be imprisonment, it means that the offender shall go to jail and imprisonment till the rising of the Court is a clear evasion of that intention.2. Possibly in rare cases when the offence is obviously technical, a Court may be justified in taking the extreme step of evading the statute which it is appointed to administer; but on the learned Judge's;own showing, this was not such a case. That the accused is a fairly respectable man and not a hardened litigant are not circumstances of extenuation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaga Annapurnamma, Minor, by Father and Next Friend Bhamidipati Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad577; (1929)56MLJ760
1. The second question referred to us for decision is:Whether the assent of a son to an adoption by his mother is sufficient assent under Hindu Law to validate the adoption where there is no change in the circumstances and there are no other grounds for the next presumptive reversioner to object to the adoption when actually made.2. In this Presidency the law is well settled that a Hindu widow, not having her husband's permission may, if duly authorized by his kindred, adopt a son to him (see Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupathy (1868) 12 M.I.A. 397). It is also settled that the condition regarding the consent of the husband's kindred is sufficiently satisfied if the consent of the nearest sapindas--even if there be only one such--be obtained (Subrahmanyam v. Venkayima : (1903)13MLJ239 and Veerabasavaraju v. Balasurya Prasada Rao ) they being by virtue of the relationship the most competent advisers of the widow and the proper judges of the propriety of her act in making ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »