Chennai Court November 1929 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.
Sri Dandayutha Pani Devasthanam Vs. Muthayanswami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.193
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is a devasthanam, and respondent is a Chetti. The devasthanam attached its judgment-debtor's property in execution of a decree in the District Court, Madura, in November, 1924.2. The Chetti had attached the same property, and brought it to sale in execution of a decree in the Sub-Court, Dindigul. Out of the sale proceeds he satisfied his decree.3. The devasthanam petitioned the District Judge to order restitution of the amount taken by the Chetti in order that there might be rateable distribution. The District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and hence this petition.4. Part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner has been directed towards showing that if the Sub-Court held assets in consequence of the Chetti's sale, such assets would be available for rateable distribution by the District Court. So much the respondent is prepared to concede, and authority for the proposition will be found in Periya Karupan Chettiar v. Sundaram Che...
F.H. Wilson, Official Assignee, High Court and anr. Vs. Nathmull
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad458; (1930)59MLJ501
Ramesam J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, C.S. No. 543 of 1926, on the Original Side filed by the respondent Nathmull originally against three defendants. Later on the suit proceeded against defendants 1 and 3 only. A decree was given against those defendants by the learned Trial Judge, and defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants before us.2. The facts out of which the suit arose may be shortly stated as follows :-The 3rd defendant Meghraj Sowcar and his partner Surajmull Sowcar filed a suit against Chunilal Omaidmull Sowcar and another for dissolution of partnership, for taking of accounts and for recovery of a certain sum of money--C.S. No. 261 of 1923. On the 17th of September the suit was decreed by our brother, Waller, J. The plaintiffs applied on the 24th of September, 1924, for attachment of the defendants' interests in the business of Nathmull and Chunilal which had been carried on at No. 99, D'Mellows Road, Choolai, Madras and for the appointment of a Commissioner to take a...
Elumalai Naicker (Minor) and Pushpavalliammal (Minor), Minors Appellan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ623
Ramesaan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the estate of one Munuswami Naicker. The facts out of which this suit arises may be shortly stated. One Veerasami Naicker, a resident of Teynampet, was the common ancestor of the parties. He was carrying on business of supplying milk to European houses and he died about 1867 or 1868. He left four sons, namely, Deva Naicker, Govinda Naicker, Logappa Naicker and Narayanaswami Naicker. The milk business was carried on for some time and then Deva Naicker took to abkari or toddy business. He seems to have prospered in this business He died in 1893 leaving two sons, Munuswami Naicker and Parthasarathi Naicker. The former died on 16th February, 1924, possessed of properties worth nearly 3 lakhs. His widow is the 1st defendant, the daughter the 2nd defendant and the son-in-law the 3rd defendant. He left a will and the defendants have taken out probate. Narayanaswami Naicker's son is Kuppuswami Naicker, the 4th defendant. His son ...
Kumaraswamy Asary and ors. Vs. (Poojari) Lakshmana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad549
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in O.S. No. 4 of 1916, dated 30th November 1925. The suit relates to the temple of Sri Kandasami in the village of Kalipatti in the Salem District. The temple was founded by one Lakshmana Goundan, the grandfather of defendant 1. He died about the year 1856 or 1857. Defendant 2 who was the son of defendant 1 was added as a party. He has since died and his sons have been added as his legal representatives. The plaintiffs are Hindu worshippers of the temple. They instituted the suit for a scheme of management. Defendant claimed that the temple was a private temple. The Subordinate Judge, Mr. Narayana Ayyar, found it to be a private temple. On appeal to the High Court, Abdur Rahim and Old field, JJ., differed, the former finding that the temple was a public temple and the latter holding it to be a private one. A decree was therefore made dismissing the appeal and from that decree the plaintiffs appealed ...
Kalatty Mudali and ors. Vs. Mangapathi Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad563
Anantakkishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are members of Sangunthi Mndaliar community of the village of Sathravada, and the suit was for a declaration that the plaint topes are common properties of the said community, that the plaintiffs and the members of their faction are entitled to jointly possess and enjoy with defendants 1 to 6, and the members of their faction, the said topes, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their party from dealing with the topes or the income thereof, independently of the plaintiffs and their party, for any purpose not sanctioned by the general meeting of the whole community.2. The plea of defendant 1 'was that the topes belonged to Sri Varadharaja Swami temple of Sathravada, that the temple owned the topes from time immemorial and that the same were in the management of trustees of the temple all along, that the office of trusteeship of the temple was hereditarily in the family of defendants 1 and 2 and that ...
Madammal and anr. Vs. Devayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad713
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. One Devayya Gowda executed a will, Ex. 1, dated 3rd July 1907. He left behind him his widow (Madammal, plaintiff 1) and his daughter-in-law (named Bowrammal, plaintiff 2, in the suit). The plaintiffs' suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the plaint properties and for other consequential reliefs. The defendant is the husband of Marammal, the daughter of the deceased son of Devayya Gowda and he claims right to possession, under Ex. 1. The question turns on the construction of Ex. 1. The first Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs adopting substantially the construction put upon it by the plaintiffs. But the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit adopting substantially the construction contended for by the defendant. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The document is not very happily worded, and I have to make the very best I can out of the same. But having) carefully considered the terms of the ...
Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Alagappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad528; 131Ind.Cas.160; (1930)59MLJ102
Curgenven, J.1. This revision petition is presented against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Devakotta in the following circumstances. The suit out of which it arises was instituted for dissolution of partnership and for accounts in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. It was transferred to the then existing Temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and he passed a preliminary decree on 23rd October, 1913, dissolving the partnership from the date of the plaint and appointing a Commissioner to examine and report upon the accounts. The Commissioner presented his report on 14th January, 1915, and the Temporary Subordinate Judge passed a final decree on 22nd March, 1915. It is with the legal aspect of a passage in this decree that we are now concerned. The decree contains certain provisions such as normally and place in a final decree for the dissolution of partnership and then occurs the following passage: 'This Court doth further direct that defendant No. 1 do take th...
Narayanaswami Mudali and ors. Vs. the President of the Board of Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad629; (1930)58MLJ410
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit has been brought by the Board of Commissioners for the modification of a scheme under the Madras Religious Endowments Act. The plaintiff compromised the suit with certain of the defendants and asked the Court to recognise the compromise and pass a decree accordingly. The learned District Judge refused to comply with the request on the ground that the compromise was not in the interests of the temple in question. The reasons for the step taken by the learned Judge are to be gathered from two orders made by him on the same date.2. This appeal is filed by defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The present attitude of the Board is different from what it was in the Lower Court. It now says that the compromise was entered into under a certain misapprehension and ought not therefore to be recognised. In the plaint, serious charges were made against defendants 1 and 2 who were alleged to have misappropriated sums amounting to about Rs. 60 to 70 thousands. There is one ve...
Dawloo Ma and ors. Vs. Karnam Ghowdappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad579
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two original suits instituted, one (O.S. No. 414 of 1921) by the daughters of a deceased lady called Narasamma, and the other (O.S. No. 327 of 1921) by a son of the deceased Narasamma. The prayer in the first suit instituted by the daughters is to recover possession of the properties. The prayer in the suit brought by the son is to set aside the decree passed by the High Court in a prior second appeal and to recover his share of the properties.2. The facts leading to these cases are those: The deceased Narasamma first married a Hindu and inherited certain properties from him. She subsequently married a Muhammadan and had by him three daughters who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 414 of 1921 and two sons, one of whom is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 327 of 1921. The reversioners to the estate of Narasamma's Hindu husband filed a suit, O.S. No. 194 of 1912, for a declaration that certain alienations alleged to have been made by h...
Dawloo Ma and ors. Vs. Karnam Chowdappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.486
1. These two second appeals arise out of two original suits instituted, one (O.S. No. 414 of 1921) by the daughters of a deceased lady called Narasamma, and the other (O.S. No. 327 of 1921) by a son of the deceased Narasamma. The prayer in the first suit instituted by the daughters is to recover possession of the properties. The prayer in the suit brought by the son is to set aside the decree passed by the High Court in a prior second appeal and to recover his share of the properties.2. The facts leading to these cases are these: The deceased Narasamma first married a Hindu and inherited certain properties from him. She subsequently married a Muhammadan and had by him three daughters who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 414 of 1921 and two sons, one of whom is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 327 of 1921. The reversioners to the estate of Narasamma's Hindu husband filed a suit, O.S. No. 194 of 1912, for a declaration that certain alienations alleged to have been made by her were not binding upo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »