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 President of the Union Board Pothanur Vs. Ramasubba Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.824
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. These two applications are for reversing the two orders of the Sub-Magistrate, Paramathi acquitting the respondents in a prosecution launched by the Union Board against them under Section 193 read, with Article of the Schedule to the Madras Local Boards Act. The President of the Union Board complained to the Magistrate that the respondents did not take out licenses for running what is popularly known as coffee hotels within the Union area and thereby committed offences punishable under the Local Boards Act. The Sub-Magistrate held that the Union Board limits were exclusive of the Taluk Board limits and the notification by the Taluk Board requiring persons carrying on certain trades to take out licenses had no force within the Union limits. In this judgment in C.C. No. 97 of 1927 the Sub Magistrate remarks, 'It refer to the licensing of trades in areas in Taluk Board limits; it does not specify whether the Union limits have been included and if the limits of Pothanur...
idara Pitchiah Vs. Unde Rajaha Raje Sir Rajah Velugoti Sree Govinda Kr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ111
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is against the decree passed by the District Munsif of Kanigiri in S.C.S. No. 504 of 1926. This Small Cause suit and a number of others were filed by the Raja of Venkatagiri against several inamdars to recover compensation for the alleged unauthorised use by the defendants of the water of the plaintiff's tank for the second crop on the defendants' inams. Such compensation was claimed in the shape of water rate or price for the use of water said to be unauthorisedly used.2. The defendants are the inamdars. The plaintiff is the Zemindar. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is admitted that the tank water which was said to be used by the defendants belongs to the plaintiff. If the defendants used the water of the tank without having a right to do so they would be committing trespass and would be legally liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. But the defendants say that they are entitled to use the water of the ...
S.N. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Ramanadhan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad199
1. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the plaintiff decree-holder in O.S. No. 31 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore for bringing on record one Ramaswami Chatty as the legal representative of the deceased defendant 4 and also for transmission of the decree to the Subordinate Court, Devakotah for execution under Section 39, Civil P.C. As required under Rule 138, Clause (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the application stated the particulars set out in Clause (a) to (i), Order 21, Rule 11, Civil P.C. and the circumstances relied on by the petitioner justifying the transmission of the decree; and notice of this application was sent under Rule 138 Clause (3) to the defendants. Defendant 1, the appellant before us, did not offer any objection to the legal representative being brought on record. He did not object to the transfer of the decree also, but he contended that the decree was not executable for various reasons and that these object...
(Bava C.) Vythilinga Mudaliar Vs. G. Ramanja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad845
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Tiruvalur passed under Section 144, Criminal P.C. The main contention of Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar for the petitioner is, that the respondent was not in possession of the Ulthuraikattalai and his client who was in possession and management of the Ulthurakattalai for two years since the death of Somasundara Mudaliar, should not have been restrained from conducting the festival. The respondent was appointed trustee by the Religious Endowments Board by an order dated 21st February 1928. He communicated his appointment to the petitioner and asked him to co-operate with him in the conduct of the festival. The petitioner replied on 3rd March 1928, that he could not recognize the appointment of the respondent as trustee and inasmuch as there was no vacancy in hereditary trusteeship and this particular appointment, therefore, could not be a valid one; and secondly, he could not take part in the managemen...
S.N. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.113
1. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the plaintiff decree-holder in O.S. No. 31 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore for bringing on record one Ramaswamy Chetty as the legal representative of the deceased 4th. defendant and also for transmission of the decree to the Sub-Court, Devakottah, for execution under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As required under Rule 138, Clause (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the application stated the particulars set out in Clause (a) to (i) of Order XXI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the circumstances relied on by the petitioner justifying the transmission of the decree; and notice of this application was sent under Rule 138 Clause (3) to the defendants. The 1st defendant, the appellant before us, did not offer any objection to the legal representative being brought on the record. He did not object to the transfer of the decree also, but he contended that the decree was not exe...
Bava C. Vythialinga Mudaliar Vs. G. Ramanuja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.166
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Tiruvalur passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main contention of Mr. Muthukrishna Iyer for the petitioner is, that the respondent was not in possession of the Ulthuraikattalai and his client who was in possession and management of the Ulthuraikattalai for two years since the death of Somasundara Mudaliar, should not have been restrained from conducting the festival. The respondent was appointed trustee by the Religious Endowment Board by an order dated the 21st February, 1925. He communicated his appointment to the petitioner and asked him to co-operate with him in the conduct of the festival. The petitioner replied on 3rd March, 1928, that he could not recognise the appointment of the respondent as trustee and inasmuch as there was no vacancy in hereditary Trusteeship and this particular appointment, therefore, could not be a valid one and, secondly he could not...
The Official Receiver Vs. Ramachandrappa, Minor by Next Friend Bala Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad166; 114Ind.Cas.345; (1928)55MLJ721
Devadoss, J.1. This is a reference under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure owing to a difference of opinion between brothers Odgers and Curgenven. The point referred is, 'In a Hindu joint trading family where there are one or more minor members and the manager is not the father and the adult members including the manager have been adjudicated insolvents, does the power of the manager to dispose of the joint falnily property for debts incurred for trading purposes pass to and become exercisable by the Official Receiver so as to bind the minors' shares?' Both the learned Judges referred to almost all the cases on the point and it is unnecessary for me to discuss them in detail. It is well settled that under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act the power of the father to dispose of his son's share for a debt which is neither illegal nor immoral on his becoming an insolvent vests in the Official Assignee. It was held by the Full Bench in Balavenkata Seetharama Chettiar v. The Offici...
Chegamull Suganmull Sowcar Vs. V. Govindaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad972
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Several questions of law have been argued by Mr. Rangaswami Ayyangar, but I do not think that I need on that account reserve judgment. The case now comes up before me after report by the Commissioner, who has been appointed to enquire into certain matters, but, I understand, that for the purpose of this judgment, it is unnecessary either to look into that report or to go through the pleadings. The facts, as stated from the Bar, may be briefly summarized. The plaintiff lent moneys to a firm known as Govindaswami & Co. It originally consisted of two divided brothers, Govindaswami and Chengayya. The former had sons, who do not matter for the present, excepting one of them, Lingayya by name. During the continuance of the firm, Chengayya died in 1916; his widow Chinna, Kannammal took her husband's place in the partnership and the business was continued in the same manner as before. She died on 20th April 1920, having ten days before her death adopted Lingayya as her s...
Dhooli Atchayya and anr. Vs. Dhooli Peddenti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad983
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the parties referred the disputes through Court to five arbitrators, it being agreed that the opinion of the majority should prevail. Two of the arbitrators did not act. In such a case the award is null and void if some do not act. This has been so well established that it is unnecessary for me to give the reasons of .the rule. In each of the eases in Thammiraju v. Bapiraju [1889] 12 Mad. 113 Abdulla v. M.V.B.S. Firm and Sons A.I.R. 1924 Rangoon 153; M. Appayya v. Y. Venkataswami [1918] 8 M.L.W. 171; and Sanjeevappa v. Venkatanarappa A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 436 such an award was set aside by the High Court in revision. The case in Dalling v. Matchett 94 E.R. 804 does not help the respondent. The order of the Court below is set aside and the suit will be restored to file and disposed of according to law. The petitioners will have costs of this petition and of the costs of the hearing of the application in the lower Court to pass a decree in terms of the award. Other ...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. T.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1169
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of an order refusing stay in C.M.A. 108 of 1928 filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in execution under Order 21, Rule 66, while settling the sale proclamation. Various contentions were raised when the sale proclamation was fixed One was as regards the value of the property and the other was as regards certain encumbranees. There were two encumbrances; one was a mortgage to one Subramama Sastri and the other was the security given to the District Court i the Tanjore Palace Estate Suit, where certain parties withdrew money for Court. As regards the security, the contention on one side was that the Tanjore Palace Suit encumbrances did not subsist and as regards Subramani Sastri's mortgage, the contention was that it was not for a cash consideration but as a charge for some running account. It was also contended that there was no mortgage amount due to him and that Subramania Sastri an, the plaintiff consented to s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »