Chennai Court April 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.
Sinnappa Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad575
Odgers, J.1. This is a revision petition to revise the decree of a Small Cause Suit before the Small Cause Judge of Trichinopoly. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondent under lease of certain lands in the Trichinopoly District for 7 years from 15th July 1922 at Rs. 350 a year, the rent being payable on 15th January each year. The petitioner went into possession and in October 1924, as is well known, owing to the devastating floods in the Trichinopoly District, the land was severely injured, that is to say, the irrigation sources were impaired and the land was silted up. The petitioner seems to have made some representations to the landlords in respect of this damage to the land, but he paid the rent as usual on 25th January 1925. The landlords are said to have promised to do certain repairs to the land which it is said would cost about Rs. 400. The landlords did not do the repairs. The tenant, however, occupied the land till May 1926 when he definitely threw up the lease and v...
K. Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. Jambukeswaraswami Temple and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad372
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 who are the trustees of Sree Jambukeswaraswami temple against the defendants for possession of the properties mentioned in the Sch. A which according to the plaintiffs were dedicated by one Karupanna Pillai towards a kattalai known as the Dadhyodana kattalai under a deed Ex. C, dated 4th July 1891. The deed Ex, C was executed by Karupanna Pillai whereby he constituted himself as the first trustee, made provisions for the succeeding trustees, gave the properties mentioned in the deed towards this kattalai and gave also the particulars as to the expenses that are to be incurred. The material portions so far as it concerns this appeal are in paras.4, 5 and 7 of the deed. Para. 4 runs as follows:Subsequent to my death, my son Subrahmania Pillai and Muthuswami Pillai son of Subramania Pillai of Tiruvannavanallur and (3) Davaraya Pillai son of Muthiah Pillai of Omandur, Musiri Taluk-these three shall either...
K. Swaminatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. S.M.C.T. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.139
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs who are the trustees of Sri Jambukeswaraswami (sic) against the defendants for possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule A which according to the plaintiffs were dedicated by one Karuppanna Pillai towards a Kattalai known as the Dadhyodana Kattalai under a deed Ex. C dated the 4th July, 1891. The deed Ex. C was executed by Karuppanna Pillai whereby he constituted himself as the first trustee, made provisions for the succeeding trustees, gave the properties mentioned in the deed towards this Kattalai and gave also the particulars as to the expenses that are to be incurred, The material portions so far as it concerns this appeal are in paras. 4, 5 and 7 of the deed. Paragraph 4 runs as follows: 'Subsequent to my death, my son Subramania Pillai of Tiruvannallur and (3) Devaroya Pillai son of Muthia Pillai of Omandur, Musiri Taluk--these three shall either unanimously, or a majority of ...
Sinnapa Pillai Vs. Ramaswamy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.79
Odgers, J.1. This is a revision petition to revise the decree of a Small Cause suit before the Small Cause Judge of Trichinopoly. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondent under a lease of certain lands in the Trichinopoly District for 7 years from the 15th July, 1922, at Rs. 350 a year, the rent being payable on 15th January each year. The Petitioner went into possession and in October, 1924, as is well-known, owing to the devastating floods in the Trichinopoly District the land was severely injured, that is to say, the irrigating sources were impaired and the land was silted up. The petitioner seems to have made some representations to the landlords in respect of this damage to the land, but he paid the rent as usual on the 25th January, 1925. The landlords are said to have promised to do certain repairs to the land which it is said would cost about Rs. 400. The landlords did not do the repairs The tenant, however, occupied the land till May 1926 when he definitely threw up the...
M.P. Sivapathi Mudaliar Vs. Sikandar Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.84
1. The only question for decision here is whether the word 'licensed' in Section 104(3) (c) of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920 means licensed under Clause (2) of the same section or in the wider sense of licensed for any purpose whatever. The appellant contends that if a license is granted under Section 166 to use a motor vehicle to ply for hire or to take passengers or goods at certain rates then such a vehicle is one licensed within the meaning of Section 104 and is not liable to pay toll. To put this general construction upon the word 'licensed' when it follows immediately after the clause dealing with certain particular licenses would be straining the words of the section and consequently the interpretation put upon it by the District Judge, seems to be the correct one. The various arguments put forward here have all been dealt with in his judgment and there is really nothing to be added thereto. The question of construing Taxing Acts in the strictest sense in favour of the sub...
Chinna Thimmappa and ors. Vs. Talukunta Timmappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1028; (1928)55MLJ351
Ramesam, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench in this case relates to the construction of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is, whether the words 'any such statement' in the first paragraph of Clause (1) of the section cover only written statements or oral statements as well. The section has been the subject of consideration in a Full Bench decision of the High Court at Rangoon reported in King-Emperor v. Maung Tha Din I.L.R. (1926) R. 72. One may begin the consideration of the section by assuming that, at first sight, two different constructions are possible. The two possible constructions are stated by Rutledge, C.J., at page 80. They are (1) a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV, and (2) a statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV and reduced into writing. The difference between the two meanings consists in that the second meaning contains an additiona...
C.R.N. Kandaswamy Chettiar Vs. Pakkiriswamy Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1050
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted on a mortgage bond, Ex. A, dated 8th March 1911, executed by defendant 1 to one Swayamprabai Ammal for Rs 3,000 and assigned by the latter to the plaintiff under Ex. E dated 11th January 1922. In modification of the decree passed by the District Munsif in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate Court exonerated items 1 and 3 of the suit property on the ground that these had been redeemed by defendants 4 and 3 respectively. This second appeal by the plaintiff relates solely to those items.2. To discharge the mortgage debt defendant 1 sold item 1 under Ex. 1 to defendant 4 for Rs. 1,900 and item 3 under Ex.5 to defendant 3 for Rs 1,000. Under the sale-deeds, these defendants were required to redeem these item) from the mortgage under Ex. A. 'They claim in this suit to have redeemed those items They obtained receipt, Exs. O and Order 1 from the mortgagee for the gum paid by them. It is admitted that the payments were ma...
Perianambi Srirangachariar Vs. Narasimha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1193; 113Ind.Cas.290; (1929)56MLJ597
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Madura dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Subordinate Judge declining to adjudicate him an insolvent. The learned Judge has held that it has not been shown that the petitioner was unable to pay his debts. When a debtor files an application to be adjudicated an insolvent under Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, he has to show that he is unable to pay his debts. But the proof that is required is only a prima facie proof, for proviso to Section 24 (a) provides thatWhere the debtor is the petitioner, he shall. for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts. be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the Court that there arc prima facie grounds for believing the same.2. The mere fact that the debtor has large properties is no ground for holding that he is able to pay his debts. A man may have property but he may be unable to raise money to pay his d...
Godasankara Vila Rajah Avergal Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.88; (1929)56MLJ113
Phillips, J.1. The question that is raised here is what is the proper court-fee payable on an application under Section 84 of the Religious Endowments Act II of 1927. Schedule II of that Act says that it shall be the fee leviable on a plaint under Article 17, Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amendment Act, 1922. It is contended here that, inasmuch as Article 17 is specified, it does not include Article 17 (a) or 17 (b), but when the whole Article is referred to it must include its component parts and it cannot be read as meaning Article 17 alone; for, if that were done, Articles 17 (i), (ii) and (iii) would equally have to be excluded and there would be no provision applicable except Article 17 which is only a preliminary heading to the various parts of the Article numbered as (i), (ii), (iii), A, B, etc. We are clearly of opinion that 'Article 17' must be deemed to include the whole of Article 17 consisting of (i), (ii) and (iii), 17-A (i), (ii) and (iii) and 17-B.2. The next ques...
Kanhirampare Ravunni Nair and anr. Vs. Nalannad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1131
1. The first point argued is that there is a special custom governing;, Nambudri families under which a Nambudri woman gets some rights in he husband's family which enable her to dispose of the husband's property under certain circumstances. Such a custom was not pleaded in the Courts below. Nambudris are governed by the ordinary Hindu law except in certain matters which need not to specified herein. Such a custom as that now set up is opposed to the ordinary Hindu law and has to be established by satisfactory and cogent evidence. There is no such custom set up, nor is there any evidence about it. We therefore decline to go into this question.2. The next point urged is that a de facto guardian of minors is entitled to encumber the minors' property for meeting the -expenses necessary for their sustenance; in other words, a person who acts as a guardian of minors is entitled to pledge the minors' property for raising funds for maintaining them, or if no money is raised on the security of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »