Chennai Court September 1928 Judgments
K.V. Desikachariar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ38
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit as representing the inhabitants of a village for a declaration that five cents of land mentioned in the plaint belongs to them and also for possession of the same from the defendants after cancellation of a grant made by the 1st defendant (the Government) under Dharkast rules to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs contended that the property belonged to the village and so the Government had no right to grant it to the second defendant.2. The important question raised in the case was whether the suit land was communal land as alleged in the plaint. Admittedly it is registered as natham in the Settlement Register. The plaintiffs were' able to prove that the site was used for the village cattle to gather in the early morning for over sixty years and also that, people used to assemble on the site during festivals in the adjoining temple. It has been held by this Court, see Collector of Godwvari District v. Pedda Rengayy...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Udayar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad115
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The two petitioners filed this criminal revision petition against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirukoilur dated 6th October 1927 deciding to continue the criminal case filed against them by the police under Sections 465 and 109, I.P.C., and Section 411, I.P.C., respectively.2. In a rioting case tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Tirukoilur ten persons were accused and they were defended by a vakil named Anantha Ayyar, now petitioner 2. At one of the hearings the tenth accused was absent and reported to be ill. The vakil offered to get a special vakalat from him, so that the case might be proceeded With in his absence. It is alleged that this special vakalat, instead of being executed by accused 10, who lived at a distance of nine miles from the Court, was fabricated in the witness shed adjoining the Court building. The vakil, it is said, dictated it; it was written by accused 9 in the rioting case and the son of the absent accused 10 affixed his father...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Aiyangar Vs. Kuppu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad478
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition sued for a declaration of his title to a certain property and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. One Vedantam Ayyangar, who died in May 1927, executed in September 1925 a settlement deed in respect of the property in favour of two daughters of a daughter. The plaintiff as the son of another daughter and as such claiming to be Vedantam's heir, alleges that this settlement deed was a mere sham, contrived as a defence against a maintenance claim, and that no property was intended to pass. Accordingly in bringing his suit he did not ask to have the deed set aside, and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 50 under Section 7 (iv) (c), Schedule 2, Court-fees Act, being the amount at which he valued the relief asked for by way of declaration and injunction. The learned District Munsif of Ambasamudram, in the order against which revision is sought, has held that the plaintiff was bound to get the d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswami Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.481
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The two petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Tirukovilur, dated 6th October, 1927, deciding to continue the criminal case filed against them by the Police under Sections 465 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and Section 411, Indian Penal Code, respectively.2. In a rioting case tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Tirukovilur ten persons were accused and they were defended by a Vakil named Ananta Ayyar, now the second petitioner. At one of the hearings the tenth accused was absent and reported to be ill. The Vakil offered to get a special vakalat from him, so that the case might be proceeded with in his absence. It is alleged that this special vakalat, instead of being executed by the tenth accused, who lived at a distance of nine miles from the Court was fabricated in the witness-shed adjoining the Court building. The Vakil, it is said, dictated it, it was written by the ninth accused in the rioting case and th...
Tag this Judgment!Yelamanchili Pitchayya Vs. Yelamanchili Rattamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad268; (1928)55MLJ856
1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing his suit on a mortgage-deed executed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's case is that he lent Rs. 1,750 on the mortgage of property belonging to the 1st defendant, a Hindu widow, and that she did not pay anything towards the mortgage amount and that he is entitled to a decree against her. The 1st defendant's case is that the money lent on the mortgage belonged to Kottayya, her sister's husband, and that the plaintiff is only a benamidar and is not entitled to a decree against her. Kottayya applied to the Court to be made a party to the suit and the Subordinate Judge directed him to be added as the 2nd defendant to the action. Kottayya's case is that the plaintiff is a benamidar for him and that he paid Rs. 1,750 for the plaint mortgage and the plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to a decree. The Subordinate Judge upheld the contention of the 2nd defendant and dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. T. Gopalakrishna Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad230; (1929)1MLJ255
1. The appellant in this case is the 2nd defendant. The facts not disputed are, the plaintiff had lent the 1st defendant a sum of Rs. 12,500 on an equitable mortgage of his house by means of a promissory note and pledge of title-deeds as security. In the beginning of March, 1925 plaintiff was informed that the 1st defendant was selling the house to the 2nd defendant under an arrangement that the 2nd defendant should discharge the mortgage. On 10th March, 1925, 1st defendant paid Rs. 900 to P.W. 2 on behalf of the plaintiff in full discharge of the interest clue on the mortgage and undertook to pay the principal within a week and that if the principal was not so paid further interest would accrue until the date of payment. 2nd defendant bought the house on 5th March, 1925. According to him he made a valid tender of Rs. 12,500 to the plaintiff on 16th March, 1925 within a week of grace but the plaintiff refused to have anything to do with him. According to the plaintiff there was no vali...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.V. Lakshmanaswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad141
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the Official Assignee to expunge the proof of respondent V.K. Natesa Chetty, to declare that he, the respondent, has no (mortgage or charge over the estate of the insolvent and that the alleged mortgage in favour of the said Natesa Chetty is fraudulent and void as against him, to direct the respondent to pay him Rs. 14,500 and Rs. 2,870 or such other sum as may be found due by Natesa Chetty on the taking of the accounts, for costs and other reliefs.2. The facts of the case are shortly these: A vesting order was made on 1st October 1920. On 22nd November 1919 the insolvent executed a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 in favour of the respondent and on 8th September 1920 another promissory note for Rs. 2,590 and deposited certain deeds as security, these being deeds of mortgage executed by third persons. The Official Assignee in the usual course wrote for particulars of the claim when a claim was made to him and the claim was notified on 22n...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Vijiarangam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad183
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This an application to set aside the order of the Master directing the insolvent's wife to appear for examination as regards the properties of the insolvent.2. Section 7 and 36, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act gives the Court power to examine any person touching the property of the insolvent. In this case it is said that the properties about which the wife of the insolvent is sought to be examined are properties standing in her name and that she claims the properties as her own. It is also stated that the case of the Official Assignee is that the properties are benami in her name but really belong to the insolvent.3. Objection was taken before the Master but he was of opinion that the lady should appear for examination.4. I do not think there is anything in the sections or in the decisions cited by Mr Narasimha Iyer (which I shall refer to) which prevents the Official Assignee from examining this lady touching the property of the insolvent. The mere fact that s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Vijarangam Naidu an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.836
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Master directing the insolvent's wife to appear for examination as regards the properties of the insolvent.2. Sections 7 and 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act give the Court power to examine any person touching the property of the insolvent. In this case it is said that the properties about which the wife of the insolvent is sought to be examined are properties standing in her name and that she claims the properties as her own. It is also stated that the case of the Official Assignee is that the properties are benami in her name but really belong to the insolvent.3. Objection was taken before the Master but he was of opinion that the lady should appear for examination.4. I do not think there is anything in the sections or in the decisions cited by Mr. Narasimha Iyer (which I shall refer to) which prevents the Official Assignee from examining this lady touching the property of the insolvent. The mere f...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanaswamy Chetty, the Official Assignee Vs. V.K. Natesa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.840
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the Official Assignee to expunge the proof of respondent V.K. Natesa Chetty to declare that he, the respondent, has no mortgage or charge over the estate of the insolvent and that the alleged mortgage in favour of the said Natesa Chetty is fraudulent and void as against him, to direct the respondent to pay him Rs. 14,500 and Rs. 2,870 or such other sum as may be found due by Natesa Chetty on the taking of the accounts, for costs and other reliefs.2. The facts of the case are shortly these:3. A vesting order was made on the 1st of October, 1920. On the 22nd of November, 1919 the insolvent executed a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 in favour of the respondent and on the 8th of September, 1920, another promissory note for Rs. 2,500 and deposited certain deeds as security, these being deeds of mortgage executed by third persons. The Official Assignee in the usual course wrote for particulars of the claim when a claim was made to him and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »