Chennai Court September 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.
Musunoori Satyanarayana Murti Vs. Chekka Lakshmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad79
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts necessary for the decision of this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows:The defendant is the appellant. Plaintiffs sued the defendant to establish their right to let out drainage water along the bodi (drainage channel) marked CC-1, in the plaint and for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs in repairing the said channel. The drainage channel passes through the defendant's fields which lie to the south of the plaintiff's lands. Plaintiffs' claim to discharge the water through the channel is based upon an easement right granted to plaintiff 1 Under Ex. E by the defendant's father. Ex E dated 30th July 1911 is a letter written by the defendant's father, Dikshithalu, to plaintiff 1. It runs as follows:You wanted a bodi for flowing freely the surplus water through the land along eastern bund of Re Survey Inam No. 187 owned by us in Pedavarthi village. Having given a bodi to you in the said manner, I wante...
Mohammad and ors. Vs. Kunhi Kutti Ali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad451; 117Ind.Cas.725
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. There are two competing applications by persons to be declared legal representatives of the deceased respondent 1 in A.S. No. 128 of 1925 on the file of this Court, who was the plaintiff in the Court below. This man filed his suit as senior anandravan of a marumakkathayam tarwad for a declaration that a pattadharam, or lease for a term of years, executed by the karnavan, of some tarwad property in favour of two other members of the tarwad, was not binding on the tarwad, and for the recovery of the property. The Sub-Judge of South Katiara decreed the suit, and the appeal has been filed by the two alienees, defendants 2 and 3, the karnavan, who was defendant 1 having been impleaded as respondent 2. Of the two applications now before me the first to be filed is by another of the anandravans, and the second by the karnavan himself.2. Under Rule 3(1), Order 22, Civil P.C., where a sole plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court shall cause the legal represe...
Govinda Krishna Yachendrulo Varu Bahadur Vs. Venkata Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad694
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, the Rajah of Venkatagiri claimed from the defendant-respondent the holder of an inam in his estate a small sum of money amounting to Rs. 5-9-2 as estimated in the memorandum of second appeal in respect of a cess called. 'sivunimera' for faslis 1329 to 1332. The defendant contended that he is not liable to pay this cess as it is only a. voluntary payment. The appellant then stated that it was not open to the defendant to raise this plea in view of the decision in O.S. No. 122/18 which would operate against him as res-judicata. The lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that sivunimera was shown to be a voluntary payment and that the decree in O.S. 122/18 obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant's father does not operate as res judicata against the defendant.2. It is argued before me that, evert though sivunimera is a voluntary payment, the respondent is now precluded from raising the plea on the ground of res judica...
Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Budam Venkatasubbayya, Minor by Guardian Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.295
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, the Raja of Venkatagiri claimed from the defendant-respondent the holder of an inam in his estate a small sum of money amounting to Rs. 5-9-2 as estimated in the memorandum of second appeal in respect of a cess called 'sivunimera for Faslis 1329 to to 1332. The defendant contended that he is not liable to pay this cess as it is only a voluntary payment. The appellant then stated that it was not open to the defendant to raise this plea in view of the decision in O.S. No. 122 of 1919 which would operate against him as res judicata. The lower Courts dismissed the plaintiffs claim on the ground that sivunimera was shown to be a voluntary payment and that the decree in O.S. No. 122 of 1918 obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant's father does not operate as res judicata, against the defendant.2. It is argued before me, that, even though sivunimera is a voluntary payment, the respondent is now precluded from raising the plea on the ground ...
Nanguneri Sri Vanavamalai Ramanjua Jeer Swamigal Through His Authorise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.386
Odgers, J.1. These were suits brought originally for rent according to a lease agreement as it is called in the plaint in Section A. No. 840 of 1925. This was amended by adding a paragraph for damages for use and occupation of certain land. The question of title in the plaintiff was expressly excluded and the plaintiffs agent goes to the trouble of recording certain remarks on the plaint whereby the plaintiff reserves his remedy in ejectment for another occasion. The preliminary objection is taken that all these three suits are of a small cause nature. Their value is admittedly under Rs. 500. The defendants after the plaints had been filed on the small cause side of the District Munsif's Court of Palmcottah raised a question of title by their defence and claimed to be permanent kudivaramadars of the property in question. The issues were first settled on 15th September, 1922, and the first of them was 'Is the defendant entitled to the permanent right of occupancy claimed'. That was clea...
Challa Ellamanda and ors. Vs. Challa Peda Ellamanda and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.229
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for the establishment of the plaintiffs' right to certain property as reversionary heirs of one Virareddi. There were three brothers Somi, Vira and Venkatareddi and it is admitted that the last named separated from the other two and the point in the case is whether the other two remained separate or joint after the separation of Venkatareddi. Virareddi having died in 1879 leaving a widow Ramakka who died in July 1921 and after her death the suit is brought by Venkatareddi claiming to be the reversionary heir of his brother Virareddi, Somireddi having died in 1882. The appellants-defendants contended that the properties in question were obtained by Ramakka from Somireddiby Ex. 2. Item No. 3 of the plaint property is admittedly Virareddi's self-acquisition and the question is as to the other items.2. Both the lower Courts have found in favour of the plaintiff, but Mr. Ch. Raghava Rao for the appellants-defendants raises three points in second appeal, namely, ...
In Re: the Assessment of T.P. Pethaperumal Chettiar Karaikudi Ist Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.485
1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, is 'whether the sum of 13,301 dollars is allowable in this case as a deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as interest paid in the year Krodhana.' Under Section 10 profits and gains of a business carried on by an assessee are to be computed after making certain allowances and Sub-clause (iii) allows the deductions of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetty residing in the Ramnad District and has rubber gardens and a money-lending business at Taiping in the Federated Malay States. In the year Krodhana (1925-26) he received a sum of Rs. 55,423 in British India from his business at Taiping and in the course of the assessment proceedings of 1926 27 the question arose whether this sum, or any part of it, represented profits of the Taiping business liable to tax under Section 4(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Income Tax ...
Tirumala Chetty Rangayya Chetty Vs. Kandalla Srinivasa Raghavacharlu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ318
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The agreement was executed by the 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant was the divided brother of the plaintiff and the two brothers were on bad terms for some time. He obtained a sale-deed from defendants 1 and 2 on the 6th January, 1921 (Exhibit VII). The plaintiff alleges that this sale-deed was obtained with the knowledge of the plaintiff's agreement, which is Exhibit A, dated the 25th December, 1920. Defendants 4 and 5 are the undivided sons of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant died during the pendency of the case in the Court below. The Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance but gave him a decree for refund of the advance of Rs. 2,500, which was received by the 1st defendant at the time of the plaintiff's agreement, with interest. The plaintiff appeals.2. The 3rd defendan...
Narayana Ayyar Vs. Subbaraya Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad32; 114Ind.Cas.558
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is whether Vembu Ayyar according to the terms of the document Ex. 13 a will, gets a vested remainder in the suit property. It is stated in Ex. 13 that Vembu Ayyarshall get the above land (i.e., suit property) after performing her obsequiesi.e., the obsequies, of his mother in whose favour a disposition has been made in the earlier portion of the document with reference to this condition. Mr. Muthukrishna Ayyar argues that since Vembu Ayyar died before his mother he could not perform her ceremonies and, therefore, the property did not vest in him. I do not think that this provision is introduced as a condition precedent to the son taking property under the will. The father thought that in the ordinary course of nature the son would survive his mother and so would perform her ceremonies. If the father thought that this was an essential condition, then he would, I think, certainly have made some other provision for the enj...
(Yerneni) Satyanarayana Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad74
Reilly, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Kistna under Section 476, Criminal P.C. that a complaint would be made against the appellant. The order, which, so far as the appellant is concerned, consists of two sentences, is in my opinion clearly insufficient. It contains no finding, as required by Section 476, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offences nor any suggestion of reasons for such a finding. The order is one subject to appeal, and it is clearly necessary that the finding and the reasons for it should be set out. It is suggested for the Public Prosecutor that these defects in the learned Judge's order are made good by the argumentative complaint which he sent to the Magistrate. I do not agree that such defects in the order can be made good by the complaint, and a discussion of the reasons for the order is obviously out of place in the complaint. I may add that the complaint, though unne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »