Chennai Court March 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.
Official Assignee of Madras Vs. G. Ramanujayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad856
Waller, J.1. Application for summons against Goday Ramanujayya, Cloth Merchant, Amalapuram, Godavery District. The question originally raised was as to the regularity of issue of this summons and whether the Official Assignee is entitled to apply for the issue of a summons, under Section 36 of the Act, to compel a witness under that section to appear when such witness resides at a distance of over 200 miles from the Court House. In other words, can a summons be issued under Section 36 to compel a witness residing over 200 miles from Madras to attend and give evidence.2. After the argument had been addressed to me on this section Mr. V. Varadaraja Mudaliar, on behalf of the Official Assignee, said that the summons in this case was not issued or applied for under Section 36 of the Act but was applied for under Section 7 of the Act, or, in the alternative, that it was applied for under either Section 36 or Section 7. As the matter has been fully argued before me, I shall record my views o...
Beas Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Pathak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.609
Ross, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants first party being defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to set aside a Collectorate partition. The plaint was filed on the 19th of September, 1923, and the allegations were that Mauza Bambhai bearing Tauzi No. 2351 had an area of 161 bighas and that more than fifty years before the lands of the mauza had been partitioned among all the proprietors. It was alleged that the defendants first party the largest co-sharers in the village had applied before the Collector for partition but that no notice under Section 21 of the Partition Act was served on the plaintiffs. When they heard of the application they filed an objection alleging the previous partition, but by collusion between the defendants and the batwara officers they were prevented from knowing the date fixed for hearing the objection which the Collector accordingly rejected. The cause of action arose on the date on which their objection was rejected by the Collect...
(Peria) Muniyan and anr. Vs. (Peria) Payyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad854
Madhavan, Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the cancellations of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants 3 to 5 by defendant 10 as a member of the temple committee of Uttankarai taluk.2. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple in the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants 1 and 2 having a turn of one-and-a-half years and the other pujaris having a of turn of two years by rotation The turn of defendants 1 and 2 ended on 26th January 1916, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by defendant 10 suspending them from office, defendants 1 and 2 obstructed them from entering the temple and exercising their functions. Amongst other things, the plaintiffs contended that the temp...
Peria Muniyan and anr. Vs. Peria Payyan Alias Muniyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.702
Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaiatiffs for the cancellation of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by the 10th defendant as a member of the Temple Committee of Uttankarai Taluk.The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple ia the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having a turn of one and a half years and the other pujaris having a turn of two years by rotation. The turn of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 ended on the 26th January, 1915, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants Noa. 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by the 10th defendant suspending, them from office, defendants Nos, 1 and 2 Obstructed them from entering the temple and exercising their functions. Amongst other things, the plaintif...
Sri Raja Ravu Sri Krishnayya Rao and anr. Vs. Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ894
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Rajah of Pittapur who claims to be the next reversioner to the Gollaprolu Estate for a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and that it does not affect his rights either as reversioner under Hindu Law or as the Zamindar of Pittapuram entitled to a vested reversion in the Gollaprolu Estate on the death of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the widow of Venkat Rao, the last male holder of the Zamindari who died issueless on the 4th of November 1871 and the 2nd defendant is the son adopted by the 1st defendant on the 15th of February, 1914.2. The Gollaprolu Estate at one time formed part of the Pittapuram Zamindari and was granted by Gangadhara Rama Rao, the then Zamindar, to his brother Venkat Rao, by a grant filed in this case as Ex. O, dated the 8th of December, 1869. Venkat Rao died issueless on the 4th of November 1871 leaving two ...
Namagiri Ammal Vs. Muthu Velappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ70
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff as Receiver brought this suit for recovery of the amount due on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant on 10th August, 1919 in favour of one Krishna Aiyangar. It was contended by the 1st defendant, among other things, that there was no such pro-note as that mentioned in the plaint, that the pro-note executed by him in favour of Krishna Aiyangar had been partially discharged and that the plaintiff is not entitled to bring a suit on the pro-note as it had not been attached by a Court. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit upholding the contention of the 1st defendant. Plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiff brought O.S. No. 152 of 1922 in the District Munsif's Court of Gopichettipalayam against her father, Krishna Aiyangar, for possession of lands and mesne profits and applied for attachment before judgment of the pro-note executed by the 1st defendant to Krishna Aiyangar for Rs. 6,000 and the Court ordered attachment on 21st January,...
(Kosuri) Gopalacharyulu and anr. Vs. Gadde Lakshminarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad87; 114Ind.Cas.650
Phillips, J.1. These are appeals from the decrees preliminary and final, in a scheme suit. The appellants are the defendants who were impleaded as trustees of the suit temple. The appellants pleaded that they were not trustees or managers but were Archakas of the temple in whom were vested the suit lands. It has now been found that they were de facto trustees inasmuch as they were in possession and management of the temple properties and had the income of the temple and its properties in their hands. Objection is taken here to the order directing the defendants to account for the moneys received by them during the last six years and also to the order removing them from the trusteeship. On the first point it is argued that the defendants have all along acted in a bona fide manner and although they may have appropriated some of the income of the trust property to their own use, they did so under the bona fide belief that they were the owners of the property and were only bound to spend w...
(Peruri) Viswanadham and anr. Vs. (Pendela) Narayana Dass and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad837
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree declaring that the mortgage executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 is not binding on the plaintiff who represents the worshippers of the temple to which the mortgaged properties belong. The appeal is argued mainly on the question of limitation which was not raised in the lower Court until the time of arguments. The Subordinate Judge has found that the article of limitation applicable is Article 120 of the schedule of the Limitation Act and that time has to be computed from the date on which the plaintiff becomes aware of the transaction in suit, and consequently that it would have been necessary to take further evidence in order to establish the fact that the plaintiff became aware of this transaction more than six years before the suit. It is now argued that this decision is wrong and that the period of limitation under Article 120, Lim. Act, runs from the date of the alienation and not from the date of the knowledge of the...
Poruri Viswanadham and anr. Vs. Pendela Narayana Doss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.22
William Watkin Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree declaring that the mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding on the plaintiff who represents the worshippers of the temple to which the mortgaged properties belong. The appeal is argued mainly on the question of limitation which was not raised in the lower Court until the time of arguments. The Subordinate Judge has found that the Article of the limitation applicable is Article 120 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act and that time has to be computed from the date on which the plaintiff becomes aware of the transaction in suit, and, consequently, that it would have been necessary to take further evidence in order to establish the fact that the plaintiff became aware of this transaction more than six years before the suit. It is now argued that this decision is wrong and that the period of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the alienation a...
Mrs. M.E.D'Cruz Vs. Nagiah Naidu and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad64; 114Ind.Cas.837; (1928)55MLJ683
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises a somewhat knotty point of construction of a will and has been argued fully and with care by Messrs. Pinto and Nambiar. The suit has been brought on a mortgage executed by one Nagiah Naidu, who is the 1st defendant. His minor sons have been joined as defendants 2 to 4. What was the interest, if any, which Nagiah possessed in the property, which could have been validly mortgaged to the plaintiff? This is the question I have to decide.2. The property originally belonged to Narasiah, the father of Nagiah, and he executed the will in question in 1906. Paragraphs 3 and 4 deal with the property in question. The testator says first, that the property shall be taken by his wife Venka-dammal and her minor son Nagiah. He then proceeds to say that his wife shall be in management of the property till Nagiah attains majority; on the happening of this event, Nagiah shall manage the property and pay suitable maintenance to his mother. Pausing here for a moment,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »