Chennai Court December 1928 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.
P.A. Sundara Ayyar Vs. the Board for Hindu Religious Endowments
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad334; 115Ind.Cas.157
Ramesam, J.1. These revision petitions are filed against the orders of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.P. Nos. 42 of 1927, 131 of 1926, 159, 110. 126, 55, 53, 80, 169, 24 and 70 of 1927 and 2 and 32 of 1928. The point for decision is what is the correct Court-fee payable on these petitions under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act II of 1927. Under Schedule II of the said Act the Court fee on an application to modify or set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments under Section 84(1) of the Act is the Court-fee leviable on a plaint under Article 17, Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act, 1922. The right to apply to set aside the decision was conferred by Section 84, Clause (2) when we refer to Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act of 1922, we find there are Articles numbered 17, 17-A and 17-B. The first question that arises is whether 'Art. 17' in the Madras Court Fees Amendment includes 17...
A.R. Arumugaswami Nadar (Representative-in-interest of A.R. Ponnuswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ295
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff has obtained a decree to enforce a charge in his favour for a maintenance allowance, and defendant 12, who has obtained a mortgage-right over some of the property concerned, appeals. Mr. Sitarama, Rao for defendant 12 has urged two points before us. His first argument is that neither the plaintiff nor his father was a party to the proceedings in which this charge was created. It appears that in O.S. No. 63 of 1899 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, which was an inter-pleader suit regarding the Vadimitta Zamindari, there was eventually a decree in accordance with an arbitrator's award; but that award merely embodied a razinamah put in by the parties before the arbitrator. In accordance with that decree the present defendant 1 got one-fourth of the Zamindari but was bound to pay a maintenance allowance to the plaintiff's father and his heirs, charged upon part of the one-fourth of the Zamindari which defendant 1 obtained...
Vatti Kuti Veeranna (Minor) by Adoptive Mother and Guardian Achamma Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad296; 118Ind.Cas.821; (1929)56MLJ401
Odgers, J.1. This Second Appeal has opened a very wide field in the Hindu Law of adoption and we have had a very learned and instructive argument on both sides and I should like to say personally that I feel very much indebted to the learned Advocates who appeared. The question opened up by the arguments have been very far-reaching and several topics perhaps not strictly germane to the actual point for decision have been touched upon, but this is only an illustration of the way in which the different elements in the Hindu Law of adoption interact upon each other and it is almost impossible in discussing the case-law, on which after all the law of adoption is developed at least as far as this Presidency is concerned and on which it now depends, not to discover a great variety of elements which largely overlap. Thus we shall find in the cases to be examined that most of them deal with more than one of these elements and the question which presents the greatest difficulty is as to how far...
A.R. Arumugasamy Nadar Vs. Kumara Ettappaswami Maniagarar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad379; 117Ind.Cas.302
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff has obtained a decree to enforce a charge in* his favour for a maintenance allowance, and defendant No. 12, who has obtained a mortgage right over some of the property concerned, appeals. Mr. Sitarama Rao for defendant No. 12. has urged two points before us. His first argument is that neither the plaintiff nor his father was a party to the proceedings in which this charge was created. It appears that in Original Suit No. 63 of 1899 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, which was an inter-pleader suit regarding the Vadimitta zemindari there was eventually a decree in accordance with an arbitrator's award; but that award merely embodied a razinama put in by the parties before the arbitrator. In accordance with that decree the present defendant No. 1 got one-fourth of the zemindari but was bound to pay a maintenance allowance to the plaintiff's father and his heirs, charged upon part of the one-fourth of the zemindari which ...
Karanath Kalati Manakkal Narayanan Vs. Vellapalli Pokat Sankaran Nayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad344; 117Ind.Cas.789
1. The only point in this Letters Patent appeal is whether O.S. No. 316 of 1917 was dismissed for default of appearance under Order 9, Rule 8. The District Munsif, Tirur, in whose Court the suit was filed, directed the plaintiffs to pay additional Court-fee on or before 19th September 1917. The plaintiffs were granted time to pay additional Court-fee on 12th October 1917 and on 31st October 1917 the District Munsif dismissed the suit. He made this note in dismissing:The plaintiffs have not paid additional Court-fee. The plaintiffs are absent. The plaintiffs' pleader has no instructions.2. The question is whether this order is one made under Order 7, Rule 11 or under Order 9, Rule 8. The plaintiffs were directed to pay additional Court-fee and they obtained time more than once and on 31st October 1917, they were absent and the vakil said 'that he had no instructions.' The expression 'Suit is dismissed for default' was interpreted both by the learned Judge in the second appeal and by the...
Kunhanna Rai (Died) and anr. Vs. Manakke and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad343; 117Ind.Cas.796; (1929)56MLJ315
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's branch of the Bellipadi family brought a suit for a declaration that certain properties belonged to the branch and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant the ejman of the family, from interfereing with their possession. Both the Lower Courts dismissed the suit and on Second Appeal Mr. Justice Krishnan gave a decree to the plaintiffs as regards the house in which the plaintiff's branch is living and the home farm lands which were in the possession of the branch. Against the decree in the second appeal, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the 2nd plaintiff was not made a party to it. This came on before us about three years ago and we allowed the appellants to file an application for bringing on record the 2nd plaintiff as a respondent. The application was filed on 15th December, 1925 and we ordered notice on 16th December, 1925. After several adjournmen...
O.S. Venkatasubba Ayyar Vs. T.M. Soundraraja Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad260
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner was discharged because of complainant's absence. The complaint was then taken up again and the trial proceeded and it is urged that this was illegal. If a Magistrate discharges an accused because of the non-appearance of the complainant under Section 259, Criminal P.C., and Subsequently excuses that nonappearance he must proceed de novo. None of the evidence recorded in the first can be carried over to the second case.2. In this case no evidence had been recorded. The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a sworn statement. I cannot see that accused was prejudiced by this irregularity and dismiss the petition....
Pappammal Vs. Alamelu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad467
1. This appeal is against the decree of the learned Chief Justice in S. A. No. 196 of 1925. The suit was one for partition and mesne profits. The findings of fact are that the property originally belonged to defendant 1's father and on his death his widow succeeded. She demised it under Ex. I to defendant 1 and her husband. The widow is said to have died in 1911. Subsequently to this, defendant 1's husband married a second wife, the plaintiff. He died in 1917. The co-widows, defendant 1 and the plaintiff, lived together till 1921, when defendant 1 turned the plaintiff out of the enjoyment of the suit property claiming the whole as the reversioner to her father. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court both held that defendant 1 had acquiesced in the position that her husband was a co-owner of the property and therefore was now estopped from interfering with the passing of his share to the plaintiff. On the ground that this concurrent finding of fact concluded the case, the learned...
O.S. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. T.M. Soundararaja Iyyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.64
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner was discharged because of complainant's absence. The complaint was then taken up again and the trial proceeded and it is urged that this was illegal. If a Magistrate discharges an accused because of the non-appearance of the complainant under Section 259, Code of Criminal Procedure, and subsequently excuses that non-appearance he must proceed de novo. None of the evidence recorded in the first can be carried over to the second case.2. In this case no evidence had been recorded. The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a sworn statement. I cannot see that accused was prejudiced by this irregularity and dismiss the petition....
illapavuluri Chalapati Rao Vs. Patchi Golla Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad691; 117Ind.Cas.289
Odgers, J.1. My learned brother has discussed 'this case in detail and I have only to say that I agree with the conclusion to which he has come. The whole controversy arises with regard to the use of the word ' hukkudharulu ' and whether that word is such a word of amplitude as can without more confer upon a Hindu female an absolute estate. There is of course no reason why if suitable words are used a Hindu female should not take as large an estate as a Hindu male under a will but if no such words of sufficient amplitude are used, then one has to apply the ordinary Hindu notions as to what quantum of estate a Hindu female takes. Hukkudharulu has been finally translated as ' the person who has the right ' which of course is for our purpose somewhat ambiguous. But it is, however, stated in the judgments what the word actually means and one would have thought that if the word in the Andhra country had been in common use to connote an absolute right then both the District Munsif and the Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »