Chennai Court July 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.
Muthuvira Reddi Rami Reddi and ors. Vs. Mayandi Venkatesa Mudali, Rece ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ668
JUDGMENT 1. Second Appeal No. 348 of 1925 - The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The Receiver of Melappudi Village sued for enforcement of pattah on the defendant, a ryot of the village. There was the usual dispute between the parties as to what the proper terms of the pattah should be. The defendant's plea was that one Subbaraya Pillai, who, it was alleged, was owner of the suit village, agreed with the defendant to commute the rents into a fixed money rent permanently and once for all, and issued pattah in Fasli 1328 embodying the rates agreed upon. The Special Deputy Collector of Chandragiri Division who tried the summary suit upheld the contention of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the proper rates of rent were the cash rates and that the commutation was bona fide and binding on the plaintiff. He accordingly directed that the pattah should be amended by insertion of the cash rates as contended by the defendant. 2. On plaintiff's appeal, the learned Di...
P.C. Muthu Chettiar Vs. Maruthanayagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad428; (1930)58MLJ435
Ramesam, J.1. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on Annamalai Chetti v. Veerabadram Chetty I.L.R.(1902) M. 111 and Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen and asked us to award compound interest at some enhanced rate after default. In the first of these cases, the learned Judges considered that compound interest was compensation for non-payment of interest only and there must be some compensation for non-payment of principal. Under the latter heading they increased the rate from 15 to 24. I am not aware of any case in which this method has been adopted or in which the decision has been followed. Though the decision has been frequently cited before me, I have never followed it. I now think it is necessary to state my dissent from that decision. All that the Act wants us to do is to award a reasonable compensation not exceeding the penalty named. It does not require us to separate the process into two parts.2. The case in Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen is a peculiar case. It cont...
Kanamatareddi Subbareddi and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.607
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are entitled to cultivate and enjoy 4 acres and 4 cents of land in re-Survey No. 367/1 in the village of Pragadavaram and for an injunction restraining the defendant from ejecting the plaintiffs from the suit land or levying penal assessment and for the refund of the penal assessment of Rs. 15 collected by the defendant from the plaintiffs. The suit having been dismissed by both the lower Courts, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The suit land is situated in a Government ryotwari tract. It is an un assessed waste land. Both the Courts have found that the Government have been enjoying the usufruct of the trees standing on the land, by periodically selling the right to enjoy it by auction. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have not been granted any patta in respect of the suit land by the Government. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs have not proved adverse possession against Gov...
Muthu Vira Reddi Rami Reddi and ors. Vs. Mayandi Venkatesa Mudali, Rec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad67; 120Ind.Cas.563
JUDGMENT 1. Second Appeal No. 348 of 1925: The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The Receiver of Melappudi village sued for enforcement of pattah on the defendant, a ryot of the village. There was the usual dispute between the parties as to what the proper terms of pattah should be. The defendant's plea was that one Subbaraya Pillai, who, it was alleged, was owner of the suit village agreed with the defendant to commute the rents into a fixed money rent permanently and once for all, and issued pattah in Fasli 1328 embodying the rates agreed upon. The Special Deputy Collector of Chandra-giri Division who tried the Summary suit upheld the contention of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the proper rates of rent were the cash rates and that the commutation was bona fide, and binding on the plaintiff. He accordingly directed that the pattah should be amended by insertion of the cash rates as contended by the defendant. 2. On plaintiff's appeal the learned Distric...
Varadaraja Perumal Koil, Melaviraraghavapuram Through Its Honorary Sup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad817; (1929)57MLJ785
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of law, relating to the right of a party in default, to the recovery of the deposit paid by him under a contract. The suit is filed by a lessee for the return of his deposit and the Trial Court rejected the,claim holding that the amount became forfeited to the lessor. The Lower Appellate Court took a different view and remanded the case for retrial and disposal. The question is, was the order of remand rightly made? The District Judge's decision remanding the suit is contained in the following passage of his judgment:The landlord's loss in re-letting was alleged and put in issue but not tried. I think that the landlord is entitled to have the question decided what damages he suffered by reason of plaintiff's default and that he is entitled to deduct from this deposit whatever amount is found due to him as. damages.2. We have first to examine the terms of the lease deed. It bears the date the 15th of April, 1920. The period...
Parinam Rama Rao Pantulu and anr. Vs. Parinam Kristnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad825; 121Ind.Cas.496; (1929)57MLJ793
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The short question in this appeal is this: Has Section 2 of Act XIII of 1923 the effect of rescinding Balamba v. Krishnayya : AIR1914Mad595 . The District Judge is of course wrong in saying that it was not open to the legislature to give effect to a view different from that taken in that decision. But the question is, what is the true construction of Section 2? It declares that the provisions of Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act of 1874 shall apply in the case of any policy effected by any Hindu in Madras after the 31st December, 1913 (the Full Bench decision having been given on the 19th December). It does not further enact that, they shall not apply to policies effected before that date. What then about such policies? They are clearly governed by the old Act. The present policy was effected in 1894 and governed as it is by the earlier Act, the decision of the Full Bench applies. We therefore confirm the judgment of the Lower Court and dismiss the ap...
Nucherla Chengiah and anr. Vs. Parasaram Subbaroya Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad555; (1930)58MLJ562
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance relating to bandhu succession--a difficult branch of Hindu Law; but we do not think that on that account we need reserve our judgment. The following pedigree sets forth the relationship of the parties;-- Sitaram Bhotlu | ______________________________________________________________________ | | | | |Krishnam Bhotlu Kondn Bhotlu Kasi Bhotlu Sesham Bhotlu (Daughter) (Son) (Son) (Son) | | | | Pedda Subbiah (S) Achamma (D) Sailam | | Bhotlu Busayya Sankariah (Son) | (propositus) | Plaintiffs. Kamakshamma. Basayya (now alive).2. Sankariah was the last male holder. He died leaving his widow Kamakshi. She is said to have made certain alienations in favour of the defendants. In this suit the plaintiffs impeach those alienations and seek to recover the properties so alienated. The defendants contest the plaintiffs' right and assert that Basayya, shown in the pedigree, is the preferential heir whose existence bars the plain...
Malabar Timber Co. Ltd. Vs. (Ponnambilath Chathankandi) Prapravan Moid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad272
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Malabar Timber Co. Ltd., now in liquidation, against the defendants for a declaration that the two hills described (SIC)n the plaint schedule are the jenmom properties of defendants 2 and 3 and of a Devaswom called the Mundayam Paramba alias Tharakkumeethal Bhagavathi Devaswom and that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession and enjoyment of the properties for the unexpired portion of the term of 72 years created by the lease dated 15th April 1915 executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of one Sri. Manavedan Raja of which lease the plaintiffs claimed to be the assignees, and for an injunction restraining defendant 1, his servants, agents and assigns from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs and for incidental reliefs.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the hills described in the plaint belong to defendants 2 and 3 and to the Devaswom of which defendant 2's ...
Malabar Timber Co. Ltd. Vs. Ponna Mbilath Chathankandi Prapravan Moido ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.284a
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Malabar Timber Co. Ltd., now in liquidation, against the defendants for a declaration that the two hills described in the plaint schedule are the jenmom properties of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and of a Devaswom called the Mundayam Paramba alias Tharakkumeethal Bhagavathi Devaswom and that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession and enjoyment of the properties for the unexpired portion of the term of 72 years created by the lease dated 15th April, 1915, executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of one Sri Manavedan Raja of which lease the plaintiffs claimed to be the assignees, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, his servants, agents and assigns from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs and for incidental reliefs.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the hills described in the plaint belong to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and to the Devaswom of...
C. Ahamad Haji Vs. Mayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad65; (1929)57MLJ789
ORDER11. The 6th defendant alone has filed this appeal. But under Order 41, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, defendants 12 to 17 (respondents 4 to 9) are entitled to teh benefit of our judgment. The decree of the District Munsif in favour of the 6th defendant and defentants 12 to 17 is restored. The result is, the appeal is allowed with costs of the appellant in this and the Lower Appellate Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »