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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.273
Odgers, J.1. In the first of these the Secretary of State appeals against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in O.S. No. 22 of 1923 on his file. This was a suit by the zemindar of South Vallur for a declaration of his title to certain lankas, and for possession with mesne profits for nine years which are estimated at over Rs. 2 lakhs and for future mesne profits till delivery. The plaintiff zemindar's father obtained the South Vallur estate in 1896 and his uncle got the North Vallur estate and the latter successfully established his right to possession of the lankas attached to his estate [cf. Secretary of State for India v. Bommadevara Venkatanarasinha Naidu 58 Ind. Cas. 689 : (1920) M.W.N. 209 : 11 L.W. 256 : 27 M.L.T. 147.]2. From 1894 the Government was in possession of the Kistna River for conservancy purposes and the suit lankas were formed in consequence of the operations of Government. On 12th June, 1920, the plaintiff zemindar made his first demand for t...
Paidimarri Mahalakshmamma Vs. Chaturvedula Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.113; (1928)55MLJ733
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the daughter of one Rama Somayajulu for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint and for an account from defendants 1 and 9 for the management of suit properties on plaintiff's behalf and for a decree for payment of such sum as may on the taking of the account be found due to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that her father Rama Somayajulu and the 1st defendant's father, Narasimha Somayajulu were brothers, that they became divided by a registered deed of partition in 1902, that since then the properties which fell to the share of Rama Somayajulu were in Rama Somayajulu's possession and on his death were taken possession of and managed by the 1st defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and her mother and that the plaintiff is entitled to the property. She also states that the defendant refused to hand over, though demanded, the properties said to have fallen to the share of Rama S...
The Municipal Council Vs. the Bombay Company, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad409; (1929)56MLJ525
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The facts relating to this case are clearly set out in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and it is unnecessary to repeat them. I considered the whole position as it stood under the Act of 1884 in the case of Clan Line Steamers, Ltd. v. Municipal Council of Cocanada (1917) 34 M.L.J. 145, in which I reviewed all the authorities. That judgment was confirmed on appeal and 1 do not propose to go over the same ground again.2. The only question I have to consider is whether Section 92 of the new Madras District Municipalities Act of 1920 has altered the law as it stood at the date of the Clan Line case. In my opinion it has not, though I have no doubt that it was intended to do so. Two parts of the section are called in aid by the Municipality. The first is the body of the section itself which uses the phrase 'transacting business' instead of the words of the old Act 'exercising...any one...of the trades or callings specified in the schedule.' It is qu...
Penmetcha Subbaraju Vs. Penmetcha Venkatramaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1025; 113Ind.Cas.632; (1928)55MLJ429
Phillips, J.1. The question referred to us for decision isWhere in a suit parties have referred their difference to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, can a decree in terms of the award be passed by the Court under Order 23, Rule 3, or otherwise, the parties not accepting the award2. This question has frequently come up for decision in this Court and has almost invariably been answered in the affirmative.3. In Nanjappa v. Nanjappa Rao : (1912)23MLJ290 it was held that an award in such circumstances was a lawful agreement, compromise and adjustment within the meaning of Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, which is the section corresponding to Order 23, Rule 3. In that case the previous decisions of this Court were referred to and followed. The subsequent cases in which the decision was under the Code of 1908 have held that Order 23, Rule 3 can be applied in. such circumstances. Chinna Venkatasami Naicken v. Venkatasami Naicken : (1919)36MLJ291 , B...
Lakshmiah Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad776
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the mortgage executed by one Narayanaswami in favour of one Chinnarappa Reddi is binding on the appellant so as So affect his interest in the property of the joint family of which he is a member. Narayanaswami, the mortgagor, was adjudicated as an insolvent in December 1920 for debts incurred inter alia in a groundnut business. He had two brothers: Subbiah who died in 1909, and Virupakshappa who died in 1917. The father of these three brothers was Kamisetti Subbiah who died in 1906. Subbiah left a son called Subbiah, and Virupakshappa left a son called Lakshmiah. Radhakrishna is the son of the insolvent Narayanaswami. The following table shows the relationship of the members of the insolvent's family which Is an undivided one. Kamisetti Subbiah __________________|________________ | | |Subbiah (d) Virupakshappa Narayanaswami 1909. (d. 1917) mortgaged | | in 1920. Subbiah. Lakshmiah. | Radhakrishna.2. Subbiah, the so...
Dist. Board of Guntur Vs. Desu Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad983a
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Guntur declaring that the respondent has not forfeited his seat under Section 56 (1) (h), Local Boards Act. Admittedly the respondent did not attend the meeting of the Taluk Board of Ongole on 10th July 1926. There was again a meeting, of the Board on 12th August 1926 which the respondent did not attend. There were no meetings in September and October. There was a meeting on 13th November 1926 which he attended. A question was raised whether he had forfeited his seat by reason of his non-attendance at the two meetings in July and August. The District Judge held; hat he did not forfeit his seat in as-much as he did not fail to attend two meetings in three months. Clause 1 (h), Section 56 runs as follows:Subject to the provisions of Section 57, a member of a Local Board shall cease to hold office, if he fails for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Local Board.2. The learned Judge calcul...
ippili Raghunadha Patro and ors. Vs. Govinda Patro (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ798
Phillips, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows:Has the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1919 power to revise orders passed by the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI or Section 205 of the Estates Land Act?2. It is admitted that the petitions in which this reference has been made relate only to Section 205 of the Estates Land Act and not to Chapter XI of the same. So far, therefore, as orders passed under the latter are concerned, the question is one of academic importance but it will probably be necessary to deal with it in considering the other portion of the reference. Although this reference deals only with orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Estates Land Act, a great deal of the argument has been directed to the power of revision passed by the High Court in proceedings generally under the Act, for it is only in three report...
ippili Raghunadha Patro and ors. Vs. Govinda Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.161
OPINIONWilliam Watkins Phillips, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows:Has the High Court in the exercise of its re visional jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1919 power to revise orders passed by the Board of Revenue, under Chap. XI or Section 205 of the Estates Land Act?2. It is admitted that the petitions in which this reference has been made relate only to Section 205 of the Estates Land Act and not to Chap. XI of the same. So far, therefore, as orders passed under the latter are concerned, the question is one of academic importance but it will probably be necessary to deal with it in considering the other portion of the reference. Although this reference deals only with orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Estates Land Act, a great deal of the argument has been directed to the power of revision possessed by the High Court in proceedings generally under the Act, for it...
Rampalli Ramachandrudu Vs. Karri Krishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.829
1. These appeals are against orders recognising the respondent as assignee of the decree in 0.S. No. 27 of 1919 and allowing attachment and sale. That suit was filed on a mortgage and ended in a compromise. No part of the original mortgage was reserved at the time of filing of the suit. The whole original mortgage was merged in the decree. The decree provided that the defendants were to pay a certain amount and that it shall be charged on the mortgaged properties. Whether there is a sale decree as the first Subordinate Judge has thought or a decree creating a fresh charge it is unnecessary to decide: The objections taken to the application of the respondent are: 1. That the assignment is not genuine, not for consideration and made with a view to evade the appellant's commission. There is no evidence on the last point. The transfer is provided by a document and it is not for the appellant to raise the question of consideration apart from saying it is a nominal transaction which case has...
Yelamarty Ramanna and ors. Vs. Sobhanadri Appa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad75
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits filed by the plaintiff zamindar against the defendants tenants under the Estates Land Act for a decree directing the defendants to accept the patta tendered by him and to execute a corresponding muchilika containing the stipulations mentioned in the patta. Suits were also filed to recover rent. The case for the plaintiff is that a proper patta was prepared in respect of the land specified in the plaint according to the practice obtaining in the estate and that the defendants declined to accept it and to execute a corresponding muchilika.2. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the patta was not prepared according to the practice obtaining in the estate or in the village, that the patta was not tendered to them, that neither the stipulations contained in the plaint patta, nor the cist amounts, nor the extents of the lands are correct, that the cist payable to the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands was correctl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »