Chennai Court August 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.
T. Unikanta Menon and anr. Vs. the Board of Commissioners for the Hind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad85; (1928)55MLJ679
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These are two out of a number of suits filed against the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board for a declaration that Madras Act I of 1925 (The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act) was not legally passed by the Legislature and is invalid and inoperative, and that the Board had no authority or power to act under the provisions of that Act and for an injunction restraining the Board from exercising all or any of the powers conferred on it by the Act.2. After the institution of these suits, Madras Act II of 1927 was passed and by Section 7 the Board constituted by and the acts done by it under the Act of 1925 were validated.3. In Sri Vythilinga Pandora Sannadhi v. Sir T. Sadasiva Aiyar : AIR1928Mad1272 and the other connected suits I held that Section 7 of Madras Act I of 1925 is valid and within the competence of Legislature and that under Section 84 of the Act in case of dispute as to whether an endowment is public or private it is the Board that should in t...
Kishen Prasad Bahadur Vs. Kottakota Dalayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad259
Wallace, J.1. This civil revision petition comes up for disposal on a finding after remand. The original suit was in ejectment and was brought in the civil Court. The respondents, who were the defendants, maintained that the land from which they are sought to be ejected was part of an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act and that, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction. Both the lower Courts upheld that plea. As the contention was that the plaintiffs held the village on inam tenure, the defendants who sought to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Court, had to prove that fact, and in order in prove that fact had to establish that the grant was of land revenue alone to a person not owning the kudivaram. The lower appellate Court-while finding that the grant was 'of land revenue alone omitted to find whether the grantee owned the kudivaram. I, therefore, remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for a finding on that point. A finding has now been submitted that t...
Suthadi Alaga thevar and ors. Vs. G.A. Baker, Authorised Agent of Prop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.137
ORDERReilly, J.1. Following Nataraja Pillai v. Rangasami Pillai 72 Ind Cas. 536 : 47 M. 56 : 41 M.L.J. 328 : (1923) M.W.N. 240 : 17 L.W. 409 : 32 M.L.T. 214 : 21 Cri. L.J. 424; A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 473 and Veduppan Servai v. Perianan Servai 113 Ind. Cas.279 : 28 L.W. 506, (1928) M.W.N. 779; A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1108 : 55 M.L.J. 621 I must hold that the Sub-Magistrate's order could not be Revised under Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code That being so the District Magistrate's order, that the Sub-Magistrate should re-consider the matter, is not a subject for revision. This petition is dismissed....
Maharaja Kishen Prasad Bahadur, K.C.i. E., G.C.i. E., by Agent Chundur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.133
Wallace, J.1. The consideration of the first issue on jurisdiction is not satisfactory in either of the lower Courts. Plaintiff brought his suit in the Civil Court. Defendants contended that it should have been brought in the Revenue Court. The onus of proving facts to oust the ordinary Civil Court jurisdiction lay on defendants, and the issue was rightly framed. What defendants had to prove was that the inam was a grant of melvaram only to a person not holding the kudivaram at the time of the grant. The first Court has wrongly thrown on plaintiff the onus of proving that at the time of the grant the grantee did not own the kudivaram. The lower Appellate Court while recognising the onus of proof has not given any finding that plaintiff was not the owner of the kudivaram, and has further in its discussion made statements unwarranted by law or from the record. Thus in para. 6 it appears to hold that there is a presumption in law that the grantee of an inam was granted the melvaram only. ...
(Pydimarri Butchi) Venkatarama Sastri and anr. Vs. (Suri) Venkatanaras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad25; 113Ind.Cas.557
1. The dispute in this case relates to the use of the water in a tank in an agraharam. The plaintiffs and the defendants own lands in that agraharam which is about 922 acres in extent. Of that, about 110 acres are wet lands. The plaintiff's case is, that of these 110 acres, 53-54 acres represent the wet ayacut under the suit tank. The defendants, it is alleged, attempted to convert a part of their dry land in the village into wet land by using the water of the tank. On that ground, the plaintiffs have asked inter alia for an injunction restraining the defendants from illegally using the water.2. The District Munsif has held that the ayacut under the suit tank is 53-54 acres and that the defendants' act in irrigating a plot not comprised in this area, with the water of the tank, is wrongful and accordingly has granted the injunction to the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the proper remedy is a suit for partition and not an injunction and on that ground has revers...
His Holiness Sinha Sri Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi Avergal Vs. Sir T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1272; (1928)55MLJ605
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These are suits filed by the respective plaintiffs against the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for a declaration that Madras Act I of 1925 is not valid and that the defendants have no right to act as a legally constituted Board and not entitlld to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Board of Commissioners under the said Act, for an injunction restraining them from exercising all or any of the powers under the Act against the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.2. In some suits there is an alternative prayer that even if the Act is valid, it does not apply to the institutions referred to in those plaints.3. The grounds on which Madras Act I of 1925 is said to be invalid are set out in the plaints.4. After the institution of these suits, Madras Act II of 1927 was passed. This Act by Section 6 repealed the Hindu Religious Endowment Act I of 1925 and by Section 7 validated certain Acts done under that Act.5. Section 7 runs...
Pandarasannadhi of Tiruvadamarudur Vs. Sir T. Sadasiva Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.561
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. These are suits filed by the respective plaintiffs against the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for a declaration that Madras Act I of 1925 is not valid and that the defendants have no right to act as a legally constituted Board and not entitled to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Board of Commissioners under the said Act, for an injunction restraining them from exercising all or any of the powers under the Act against the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.2. In some suits there is an alternative prayer that even if the Act is valid, it does not apply to the institutions referred to in those plaints.3. The grounds on which Madras Act I of 1925 is said to be invalid are set out in the plaints.4. After the institution of these suits, Madras Act II of 1927 was passed. This Act by Section 6 repealed the Hindu Religious Endowments Act I of 1925 and by Section 7 validated certain acts done under that Act.5. Section 7 r...
Chaturvedula Suryanarayana Vs. Sree Raja Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Baha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ273
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which the present Civil Revision Petition arose may be stated as follows : The plaintiff is one of the Zamindars of Nuzvid. The defendants are the owners of an agraharam in the Zemindari, liable to pay kattubadi to him. Defendants 1 to 4 are the descendants of the original agraharamclars. 5th defendant purchased the 1st defendant's share in the agraharam. 6th defendant purchased 100 acres 15 cents out of the 5th defendant's share. The suit is to recover Rs. 309-10-5 being the amount due on account of kattubadi from the defendants for faslis 1332 and 1333. The Lower Courts gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for. 6th defendant is the petitioner before me. He originally filed a second appeal. It was afterwards converted into a Civil Revision Petition.2. His contention is that he being only a purchaser of a definite extent from one of the agraharamdars is not liable jointly and severally with the other defendants and that his liability now r...
Chokalinga Chettiar Vs. Dandayuthapani Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1262; 113Ind.Cas.337
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The short question for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get a decree for the suit amount against defendant 2 along with defendant 1. The plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of the money due under a promissory note executed by defendant 1. Under Ex. B 1, a letter, defendant 2 guaranteed the payment of this promissory note debt. In it, he stated as follows:Kuppuswami Chatty...who executed a pro-note on this date in your favour for Rs. 380 will pay you the principal and the interest amount thereof within three months' time. If he does not so pay, I shall have the note assigned to ray name and pay you the principal and interest.2. As the money was not 'paid either by defendant 1 or 2, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this Letters Patent appeal arises against the two defendants and obtained a decree against both of them in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruthuraipundi. On appeal by defendant 2,...
T. Raju Vs. Nagammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.449; (1929)56MLJ41
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows : One Kothandarama Aiyar of Poongavoor (Tanjore District) died on 25th April, 1905, leaving two daughters (1) Nagammal, 1st defendant, who is a widow, and (2) Gnanambal, his adoptive mother Valambal, and his widow Parvathi Ammal. Prior to his death he had executed a will, dated 20th September, 1902, Ex. XIII, (2) a will, dated 8th September, 1903, of which we have no record, (3) a will, dated 29th October, 1903, cancelling the previous will (Ex. VI), and (4) a last will, dated 13th March, 1905 (Ex. A) in which all previous wills were cancelled. Along with the will of September, 1903, he executed a deed of settlement, dated 3rd September, 1903; but it was never registered and therefore never came into operation. Under his last will, Ex. A, he gave power to his widow to adopt either a son of his daughter Gnanambai provided she begets a son before January 1908, or a son of any one of his nephews, T. Subramania Aiyar or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »