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.
Sundaram Ayer Vs. Kulathu Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad61
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in these second appeals. Summary Suits Nos. 44 etc. of 1916 and Nos. 36 etc. of 1917 were instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of the Honorary Deputy Collector of Tinnevelly Division to recover rent due in respect of properties in the possession of the ryots defendant in the inam village of Vagaikulam. The inam village belongs to Sri Vyasaraya Swamigal Mutt at Sosalai in the Mysore State. The practice of the Mathadhipati had been, as is disclosed by the evidence in these cases, to grant leases to persons for different terms authorising them to recover the rent from the ryots in possession of the lands. It is in evidence that leases for particular terms were granted, among others, to the father of the plaintiff. The last of the said leases came to an end with fasli 1321; and the plaintiff obtained a lease for faslis 1322 to 1331 from the Mathadhipati, and on the basis of the said lease he instituted the various suits men...
Alagiri Nayakar and anr. Vs. Perumal Nayakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.503
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. The question between the parties was whether two strips of land marked in plaintiffs plan belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendants in common and whether the said persons have been using those strips of land as common path-ways for going from their houses to the street on the west. The first Court found in favour of the plaintiffs whereas the lower Appellate Court has decided both the points against the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Both the above questions are questions of fact and the lower Appellate Court had evidence before it on which it was open to it to come to the above conclusions. The learned Advocate for the appellants took me through the judgments of the lower Courts and submitted that there were no real discrepancies in the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and that the lower Appellate Court erred in not accepting the oral evidence which has been accepted by the District Munsif...
Vappu Rowther Vs. Sivakataksham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad588; (1930)58MLJ406
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point to decide is, is the execution application in time? That would depend upon whether the previous application was for taking some step in aid of execution. The present application was within three years of the previous one and we are, therefore, to determine whether the latter was an application to take some step within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act.2. The Lower Courts have held in favour of the decree-holder. He is not here represented, but Dr. V. K. John who appears for the judgment-debtor has drawn our attention to numerous authorities on the point. I may mention that it was in a pending execution petition that the previous application was made. That application was for leave to bid and to set off the price against the decree amount. The question is, does such an application fall within the Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act?3. On this point there is no decided case of the Madras High Court. The test in such cases has been laid do...
The Maharaja of Pittapuram Vs. Sri Chelikani Venkatarayanim Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.526; (1929)57MLJ260
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The question that has been referred to me is, what is the Court-fee payable in respect of the memoranda of objections in Second Appeals Nos. 141 to 144 of 1928. The original suits were instituted by ryots under Section 95 of the Madras Estates Land Act. In the plaint there are distinct allegations to the effect that proper notice was not served on the ryots and that the amount of rent due was wrongly stated in the demand. The first Court dismissed the suits filed by the ryots, but on appeal by the ryots the Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the amount of rent due was not Rs. 4,000 and odd but only Rs. 2,000 odd. Accordingly, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decrees passed by the first Court dismissing the suits, and in modification of the said decrees declared that the distraint made by the landlord was not wholly void but was valid only to the extent of Rs. 2,000 odd, the amount of rent found by it. The landlord has preferred these ...
B. Raghavendra Row and ors. Vs. Vobiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad292; (1929)57MLJ448
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the temple committee of Kudligi for a declaration that the suit temple, which they say was called Hude Kampli Devaru, is subject to the control of the plaintiffs, for directing the defendants to return to the manager, who they allege was appointed by them, the properties of the temple, for accounts and other reliefs. The contesting defendants deny the plaintiffs' claim. Their case was that Kampli Devaru had no temple, that they had no concern with Kampli Devaru temple at Hude and the inam, that the right of appointing the pujari is in Mesa Naiks, that Kampli Devaru idol is permanently in Mysore territory and that the Court has no jurisdiction.2. The suit was instituted in 1911. It came up twice to the High Court as the suit was decided on preliminary questions. The Subordinate judge who tried the suit after both orders of remand has found that the Kampli Devaru is a Narasimha sali-grama image which is the deity of the M...
(Kattukkavil Kizhukkepai) Nangunni Kovillamma and ors. Vs. (Keli) Nedu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad860
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the Judgment of Devadoss, J., and raises a question relating to the doctrine of subrogation.2. We are concerned with two sets of properties, the first sot comprising items 1 and 2 and the second items 3 to 7. We may at once dispose of the appeal, so far as it relates to the properties in the second set, with the remark, that there is a concurrent finding of fact that they are the self-acquisitions of defendant 1 and that finding cannot be disturbed in second appeal.3. Now as regards the first set, the facts are these. Defendant 1 executed in 1911 a usufructuary mortgage (Ex. A) in favour of defendant 11 for Rs. 4,000. As a part of the same transaction, the latter gave the mortgaged properties on lease to defendant 1 and he has throughout been in possession. Defendant 11 in 1914 assigned his right to the plaintiff who claims in this suit possession and rent. The main contest is that of defendants 13 to 16 who are members of def...
(Muddanna) Sreeramulu and ors. Vs. (Muddanna) Hanumayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad47
1. This is an application to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for possession and to convert the suit into a suit for possession. The suit was filed by the reversioners for a declaration that a certain adoption is invalid and that certain alienations made by the adopted son are also invalid and not binding against them. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was brought more than six years after the date of the alleged adoption was known to plaintiffs. He did not go into the question of fact whether there was in fact an adoption and whether such an adoption was valid and legal. Pending this appeal the widow died about two or three months ago and the present application is to amend the plaint as we have stated above.2. It is clear from the decision of the Privy Council in Muhammad Omar Khan v. Muhammad Niazuddin Khan [l912] 39 Cal. 418, and Kalyandappa v. Chan Basappa A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 137, that a suit for recovery of possession would not be barred even...
Nagappan Konan Vs. Ramaram Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad769; 126Ind.Cas.594
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The Sub Magistrate of Tiruvadamarudur in C.C. No. 202 of 1928 on his file discharged three persona of the offence of theft and subsequently passed an order that the property involved, namely, three calves, should be returned to them. A petition praying for the revision of the order of discharge was presented by the implainant to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore and shortly afterwards he presented a supplementary petition praying that the property should be handed over to him. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order declining to interfere either with the order of discharge or with the directions of the lower Court regarding the property. The complainant then applied to the High Court to revise both portions of the order. The order of discharge has been disposed of in Criminal Revision Case No. 158 of 1929, the petition having been dismissed and I have now to deal with the order with regard to the property.2. The contention raised is that the ...
Manikka S. Balaramier Vs. Vasudevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad802; (1929)57MLJ424
ORDERWallace, J.1. We are concerned with two petitions, C.M.Ps. Nos. 763 and 764 of 1928, both arising out of the hearing by this Court of C.R.P. No. 801 of 1926. That petition was heard by Mr. justice Devadoss and judgment was pronounced on 6th December, 1927. It has subsequently come to light that the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition died on 26th Nov., 1927, a few days before the judgment was pronounced. The formal order of this Court on the Civil Revision Petition shows respondent's name. The petitioner before us on 2nd February, 1928, within three months of the death of the respondent, has put in the present two petitions, No. 764 to bring on the legal representatives of the deceased in C.R.P. No. 801 of 1926 and No. 763 to have the Civil Revision Petition re-heard. He contends, however, that the latter petition is unnecessary and that he is entitled to have the legal representatives brought on and the judgment of Mr. justice Devadoss to stand against them. His main conten...
Vaithilinga Aiyaswami Aiyar Vs. the District Board of Tanjore Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad43; 121Ind.Cas.601; (1929)57MLJ510
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The question that has been referred to me is, what is the amount of Court-fee payable in respect of a Memorandum of Second Appeal preferred by a ryot in a suit filed by him under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act. Under that section, whenever a landholder expresses his intention to avail himself of the powers given to him under the Estates Land Act to sell the holding, he is bound to give, through the Collector, a written notice to the ryot. That section also provides that, if he (the ryot) does not pay the amount or file a suit within 30 days before the Collector contesting the right of sale, the said holding or any part thereof specified in the notice will be sold. In this particular case, the ryot contested the landholder's right to sell his holding under Section 112. One of the reasons given by the ryot was that there was no proper notice. There were other objections also raised by the ryot. The suit was dismissed by both the Lower Courts. The ryot,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »