Chennai Court August 1928 Judgments
The President, Union Board, S.V. Piravi Perumal Pillai Vs. Narayana Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1261; 113Ind.Cas.276; (1928)55MLJ718
ORDERReilly, J.1. For the petitioner, the President of the Tiruku-rangudi Union Board, it is contended that Nallamaram, where the respondents live, is within the limits of the Union, which the respondents deny. The Union was constituted by the Government in 1896 under Section 6 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1884. One of the villages then declared by the Government to form the Union was Sengalakurichi. It is admitted that Nallamaram was not then included in Sengalakurichi or in any of the other villages of the Union. But it appears that in 1910 the revenue village of Sengalakurichi was enlarged by the Board of Revenue so as to include Nallamaram. It is not suggested that any new or revised notification regarding the inclusion of Nallamaram in the Union was ever issued. But it is contended for the petitioner, that, when the Board of Revenue for another purpose enlarged the boundaries of Sengalakurichi, the whole of the village of Sengalakurichi so enlarged was automatically brought wit...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Balakrishna Menon, Late Official Receiver Vs. Kakkat Manakkal Uma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad105; 114Ind.Cas.825; (1928)55MLJ873
Wallace, J.1. On the 7th December, 1920, a Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 353 of 1919 between the Official Receiver of South Malabar (Mr. A.V. Balakrishna Menon), the appellant and various respondents, decreed 'that the appellant do pay to respondents 1 to 6 Rs. 452-13-6 for their costs in opposing this appeal.'The short point for decision in this C.M.A. is whether or not the wording of that decree has to be taken to imply that the costs can be recovered from Mr. Balakrishna Menon personally. The Lower Court has held that 't does so imply and Mr. Menon appeals. He contends that such phrasing in the decree against the Official Receiver ex-officio implies that unless the Court directs otherwise he shall not be personally liable. The respondents contend that where the Court has not said that the costs will come only out of the insolvent's estate in the hands of the Official Receiver, the Official Receiver is personally liable for the costs.2. Admittedly, Mr. Balakrishna Menon was no long...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswami Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.363; (1929)56MLJ107
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a reference of the Taxing Officer of the High Court. The terms of reference are:Whether, in valuing the interest that would be lost to the allege] adopted son (the 1st defendant in the present case) if the adoption be declared invalid, the market value is to be taken.2. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration that no adoption had taken place and even if an adoption had taken place, it was an invalid adoption. The appeal is by the plaintiff. He paid a Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17 (a) (iii) of the Court Fees Act. The office objects to the amount and requires the appellant to pay Rs. 500, that is Rs. 400 in addition, as the market value of the property is more than Rs. 10,000. It is admitted that the market value of the property in dispute is not less than Rs. 10,000. Mr. Harihara Aiyar, who appears for the appellant, contends that in a case falling under Article 17(a)(iii), the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation upon the relief claimed by h...
Tag this Judgment!Palimuthu Ambalagar Vs. the President, Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ360
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. These are applications for revising the conviction of the petitioner under Section 207 of the Local Boards Act of 1920. The petitioner in each case was asked to remove an encroachment upon a vacant site belonging to the Union and the prosecution was for non-compliance with the notice within the time fixed. The petitioner was prosecuted and fined Rs. 20 in each case. There was some dispute in respect of the vacant land between the Union Board and the Pillayar temple of which the petitioner in Cr.R.C. No. 934 of 1927 is the Dharmakartha, and also in respect of the plot of land in front of the land of the petitioner in Cr.R.C. No. 935 of 1927. There was a survey of the lands belonging to the Union Board and under the survey the plots in dispute were marked off as belonging to the Union Board and a notification was published in the District Gazette; as required by Section 13 of the Surveys and Boundaries Act. That was somewhere in 1926. Notice was issued to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Vaiyapuri Chettiar Vs. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad27; 114Ind.Cas.337
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of his half-share of the suit property. The plaintiff's father and defendant 1 were brothers. Between them, there was a partition of the family properties in the year 1893. This partition included the suit property also but it is the common case of both the parties that this property was not divided but was allowed to remain in the possession of defendant 1. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 1 was allowed to remain in possession for the purposes of management so that he may give over the produce on the property to the plaintiff's sister. The defendant set up a special case that the property was given over to his possession as it was understood that he should have it for himself in case the. title to another item of property given to him under the partition-deed was found defective; he also pleaded adverse possession in support of his claim. Thus, the three questions for conside...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Doraiswamy Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.226
Odgers, J.1. When these cases came before me at the end of April last, I adjourned them to see if a settlement could not be effected as it is a case of a father suing a son.2. These two persons entered into a partition deed, Ex. A, in 1922 and very ill-advisedly, as it seems to me, four debts due on bonds executed to creditors by the father alone, Exs. B, C, D and E were allocated to the son i.e., he was bound to pay them. The debts had been undertaken for family expenses in connection with the funeral of the wife of the plaintiff and the mother of the defendant. In 1924 the father renewed the debts by keeping them alive and in 1926 he discharged them. The suit is now for recovery of this money that he paid for the discharge of these debts from his son. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff and gave him a personal decree against his son with interest as damages at 12 per cent, per annum.3. It is first contended before me that there is no personal liability to re-pa...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naicker Vs. Palaniswami Chettiar Alias Ponnuswami Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad153; 117Ind.Cas.716; (1929)56MLJ380
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 63,000 and odd due to the plaintiffs on a mortgage bond, dated 26th March 1920 (Ex. A), executed by the 1st defendant. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant is the Official Receiver of Coimbatore representing the 1st defendant who has become an insolvent. The Court below gave a decree as prayed for. The 4th defendant alone appeals.2. The deed of mortgage, Ex. A, was executed for Rs. 40,000 consisting of Rs. 30,000 borrowed for the purpose of paying the branch of the Madras Bank at Coimbatore and Rs. 10,000 received at the time of registration. The learned vakil for the appellant argued that neither of the items is binding on the 4th defendant so as to form consideration for a mortgage. Taking the first item of Rs. 30,000, the existence of the prior debt to the Bank of Madras at Coimbatore and the payment of Rs. 15,000 by the 1st plaintiff and another Rs. 15,000 by the 2nd plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Reddiar and ors. Vs. Ramanuja Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad492
1. This appeal No. 172 of 1924 is against the final decree passed in partition suit. The points urged by Mr. Seshagiri Sastri for the appellants are that the Commissioner was not justified under the warrant of commission to award to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,400 against defendants 1 and 2, and that he was not justified, in dividing the trees in such a way as to inconvenience defendants 1 to 3.2. After the passing of the preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties between plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3. The Commissioner divided the properties, and with regard to houses which are items 1 and 2 in Schedule C (1) he said:As the defendants' houses are good ones, as the plaintiff's house has to be built anew, defendant 2 shall pay Rs. 1,000 and defendant 1 Rs. 400 to plaintiff 2.3. This observation of the Commissioner, Mr. Seshagiri Sastri contends, amounts to an award which he was not authorised So make under Order 26, Rule 14, Civil P.C. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!(Kode) Atchayya Vs. Kosaraju Narahari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad81
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Guntur under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act (8 of 1890) directing the appellant to hand over to the respondent his male child aged 4 years. The respondent is the father of the child and the appellant is its maternal grandfather. The material facts of the case are these : The child's mother died about three years ago. From the time she gave birth to the child she was ailing from some disease and it was thought advisable in the interests of the child that it should be separated from the mother. The child was, therefore, left under the care of the appellant and his wife who have since brought it up. The respondent married a second wife sometime after the death of the child's mother and his second wife is living with him. Besides her, he has a widowed sister who is also living with him as a member of his family. His case is that he requested the appellant to send back the child to his custody as he was desirous of b...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Savithri Bayi and ors. Vs. Kottayi Achuthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad638
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut remanding O.S. No. 373 of 1924 to the District Munsif of Vayitri for disposal. Respondent 9 in appeal who is the legal representative of defendant 1 is the appellant. The facts relating to this remand are these. Defendant 1 the kanomdar of a house site, had demised it to defendant 3, the latter built a house on it and hypothecated it to defendant 1. Defendant 1 brought a suit, O.S. 464 of 1922, upon the hpyothecation, obtained a decree and in execution of it purchased the house himself. When he tried to obtain delivery of possession of the house he was obstructed by the plaintiffs in the present suit who, stated that the house was built with the tarwad funds of the plaintiffs and of defendant 3, and not by defendant 3 alone out of his own funds. Defendant 1 then applied for the removal of the obstruction in M.P. 905 of 1924 and the obstruction was ordered to be removed. As a consequence ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »