Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad78
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit for a scheme and consequential reliefs under Section 69, Madras Act 1 of 1925 (The Religious Endowments Act) in respect of the endowments of a temple dedicated to Sri Varadaraja Perumal Swami in the village of Mullipallam, Nilakottai Taluk, Madura District. The plaintiffs' case is that the lands which were constituted as an endowment were originally granted as an inam by the ancient Carnatic rulers of the country to the diety. The defendants belong to the family of the archakas of the temple. They pleaded that the archakas were in occupation of the lands from time out of memory. They also, say that they bona fide believe that the grant of the inam was to the service holder burdened with the obligation of the service of doing puja and putting light in the nights, and the allegation in the plaint that the inam was an inam to the deity was denied. Issue 5 in the case is whether the grant was to the temple itself or to the archaka burdened wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad783a
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, the defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff filed this suit against him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,500 as damages for the breach of a contract of sale evidenced by Ex. A. Both the lower Courts have found that the default was on the defendant's part and fixed a sum of Rs. 250 as reasonable compensation awardable to the plaintiff. It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff's title to the suit land was not so defective as to justify the defendant in resiling from the contract. The land is situate in a zamindari and patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title without any reservation, except as to payment of rent in kind : vide Ex. G. Presumably this is a ryoti land in a zamidari and any ryot admitted to possession of such land under the aforesaid patta, gets a permanent right of occupancy. It is transferable and heritable. That being so, it is quite unintelligible that the defendant should have apprehended...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad784
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (respondent 1) for a declaration of his title to do services in the plaint-mentioned temple and also for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff's enjoyment of item 1 in Schedule A and for some other reliefs. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the District Munsif, but on appeal, the plaintiff obtained an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his possession of item 1. To this extent alone, the appeal was allowed. It is contended by the appellants in this appeal, that the lower appellate Court's judgment is vitiated by an erroneous view of law taken by it. It is true that a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, was filed by the present defendants 1 and 2 against the present plaintiff and that suit was dismissed : vide Ex. D. On the strength of this judgment, the lower appellate Court held that by reas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad826
Cornish, J.1. The appeal in this case relates to the execution of a decree obtained on 3rd March 1911 by the plaintiff against the Raja of Kalahasti. After some unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree in the Nellore District Court the decree was transferred for execution to the Chittoor Court. There was apparently-considerable difficulty in discovering what properties were attachable in execution of the decree, for it was not until January 1923 that a schedule of properties was filed. This schedule adopted the particulars of property, consisting of seven lots of items given by the defendant, the legal representatives of the original defendant, in a memorandum (Ex. A) filed by him in support of a counter petition, in which he alleged that the seven items were the personal pro-party of the judgment-debtor and that these properties were alone liable for the decree debt. Notice of this petition was ordered to go to the defendant. A counter petition was filed on his behalf in which, not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad425
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of a small plot of land on payment of a sum of Rs. 100 to the defendant (appellant) by way of redemption of an othi (usufructuary mortgage) held by him. The plaintiff's claim to the suit land is based upon the registered sale deed Ex. A. His claim was resisted by defendant 1 on several grounds which necessitated an elaborate trial and a good deal of arguments before the lower Courts. In this second appeal, they have filtered down to two main contentions which alone have been strenuously argued before me by the learned advocate for the appellant.. They are: (1) that the sale under Ex. A is invalid as it was executed in favour of a minor, and (2) that this sale deed is invalid, as it was not validly presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar.2. Before proceeding to discuss the question of law a brief reference to the contents of Ex. A and some relevant facts wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad257
1. In this case we have got a decree against a Hindu father. There were a number of execution petitions in 1916, 1918, 1920 and 1921. In the execution proceedings of 1921 the property was sold. The sale certificate is dated 31st March 1921. The present defendant 1 was the purchaser. He sold the property to the present defendant 2 under Ex. 5 dated 19th September 1921. The present plaintiff brought this suit for the recovery of his share in the property on the ground that the execution proceedings against his father, the judgment-debtor, did not include his own share in the property. Prior to that he had put in a petition for setting aside the sale so far as his interests were concerned: vide Ex. 3 (a). It was dismissed, There was an application for review, Ex 4. That was dismissed. It is clear that all parties thought that the execution proceedings were against the whole of the family property and not against the father's share only. In none of the schedules attached to the proclamatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad40
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the plaint-mentioned property belongs to him by right of purchase under the sale deed, Ex. A, obtained from one Guruvammal who had previously purchased from defendant 2 under the sale deed, Ex. 13, for Rs. 500. Defendant 1 who obtained a money decree against defendant 2 in O.S. No. 570 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Srivilliputtur, caused the suit property to be attached as that of the judgment-debtor, the present defendant 2. The plaintiff intervened in the execution proceedings setting up his claim to the attached property on the strength of the sale deed Ex. A, but without making any investigation of the claim, the executing Court rejected the claim petition as being late: vide Ex. F. Thereupon, he instituted the present suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C, and his suit was resisted by the attaching creditor (defendant 1) on the ground that the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad374
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, for a declaration that the will Ex. 3, alleged to have been executed by her deceased father, one Krishna Ayyar, is not genuine and that, even if it be found to be genuine, it is invalid. The defendant is the widow of Krishna Iyer, and was his third wife. The plaintiff is her step-daughter. The main point for consideration is whether the deceased Krishna Ayyar had any disposing power over the suit house after the execution of the registered settlement deed by him on 10th April 1920 : vide Ex 1. This question turns upon a proper construction of the terms of Ex. 1. By this deed the settlor gave his wife (the defendant) a right to enjoy the house along with him during his lifetime and after his death to enjoy the house till the end of her lifetime and thereafter the house should be taken by his heirs absolutely. There is no doubt that he intended to confer a life-estate on his wife in this ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad790
Curgenven, J.1. The effect of the decisions in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh [1898] 20 All. 90, is very considerably weakened by that in Basdeo v. John Smith [1899] 22 All. 55, which holds that a defect in the signature of a plaint, or even the absence of any signature, it being found that the suit was filed with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, is not ordinarily a ground for interference in appeal. Much less then is it a ground for interference by a District Munsif under Section 73, Village Courts Act, or by this Court, in exercise of its powers of revision, if petitioner cannot assert any specific prejudice to himself arising out of the irregularity. I therefore dismiss the Revision Petition....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad19
Waller, J.1. This is an appeal against an order appointing a guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act. A father applied under Section 10 of the Act to be appointed guardian of his minor daughter's person and property and under Section 25 for an order directing the respondent to deliver her into his custody. The District. Judge appointed him guardian of the property and directed the respondent to restore the child to her father, remarking that no order as regards the guardianship of her person was necessary.2. The conditional order of appointment as guardian of the property is of no effect: In re, Venkatesa Perumal A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 36, and must be set aside. The District Judge is not correct in saying that no order as regards the guardianship of the person was 'necessary.' No such order could have been passed. On this point, we agree in the view taken by Ramesam and Jackson, JJ., in Lakshma Beddi v. Vira Reddi : AIR1925Mad1085 and not in that taken by Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Raghavaiy...
Tag this Judgment!