Chennai Court September 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.
Somalinga L. Rengier and ors. Vs. Ramia Santhu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad264
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (respondent 1) for redemption of the plaint-mentioned othi on payment of a sum of Rs. 300 to defendant 1 and for recovery of possession of the plots marked A and B on redeeming the said mortgage. The facts of this case are set forth clearly in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The usufructuary mortgage sought to be redeemed in this case has arisen in the following circumstances: In 1885 the plaintiff's deceased grandfather Lakshmana Ayyar received a sum of Rs. 300 from defendant 1 for the purpose of constructing a house on the site maked A and permitted him to occupy the said building and also the terraced room B in lieu of interest due on the sum of Rs. 300. There was thus an oral othi in favour of defendant 1 in November 1885. Defendant 1 and his wife have been in possession of the suit properties since 1885. On the strength of a subsequent Hypothecation deed, of 1894 executed by the p...
Secy. of State Vs. Dist. Board of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad679
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit is against the District Board of Tanjore in whom the right of management of the properties belonging to the plaint-mentioned chhatram is vested. The dispute in this case is in respect of the right of fishing in the river Korayar which is a non-tidal and non-navigable river within the limits of the inam village of Turakkadu which belonged to the chhatram. The village on either side of Turakkadu belong to the plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that the exclusive right of fishing in aforesaid river within the limits of the said village has been in the enjoyment of the Government peaceably and openly from Faslis 1302 to 1329 inclusive as of right and without interruption. The title to the said right of fishing is claimed as an casement under Section 15, Easements Act, and if for any reason that Act is held to be inapplicable, the plaintiff states that he is entitled to the exclusive r...
T.P. Java Rowther Vs. Sulaiman Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad814
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Suit to recover money due on a hypothecation bond dated 29th November 1906, executed for Rs. 300 by defendant 1 (Hameeda Beevi Ammal). Defendants 2 to 9 were impleaded as legal representatives of defendant 1, who died shortly after the filing of the plaint. The plea urged by the contesting defendants was that the property belonged to their father (husband of defendant l), that owing to pressure of creditors and to settle their claims easily the father made a colourable settlement in favour of defendant 1, and in order to lend colour to the settlement the plaint hypothecation bond was executed in favour of the plaintiff who was the father-in-law of defendant 2 without any consideration; and after the death of their father (defendant l's husband) the plaintiff having insisted on payment of Rs. 250, defendant 2, the eldest of the children, paid the plaintiff Rs. 360 in 1907, which was accepted in full discharge of the mortgage, and that the present suit was the r...
The Union Board Vs. A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad302; 123Ind.Cas.40
Wallace, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff has a right to sue. The plaintiff is the Union Board of Devakotah and sues to have it declared that the decision of the Survey Department that a certain plot of ground is the property of the defendant and is not public road vested in the plaintiff is a wrong decision, and for consequential reliefs. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain it and the plaintiff appeals.2. The decision of the Survey Officer was on the 12th May, 1920. The plaint was presented on the 6th June, 1921, and is in time, but the ground for the lower Court's decision is that on the date of the plaint there was no Union Board validly constituted in which the right of action vested, and, therefore, no Union Board which could validly maintain the suit. The party who represented before the Survey Officer the claim of the public to the plot was the Taluk Board. The ques...
Velliyappa Chetti (Minor) by Mother and Guardian, Lakshmi Achi Vs. Vel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ316
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff claiming to be the legatee under the will of his grandfather, for an account of the estate and for possession. He also wanted damages for misfeasance and malfeasance of the executors. The executors are defendants 1 and 5 The Lower Court passed a decree in plaintiffs' favour. The 1st defendant's case was that the 5th defendant was managing the estate till his disappearance in 1915 and that his management was merely formal, i.e., 'he merely signed in the deposit account and the receipts, Exhibits IV and IV (a).. The 5th defendant was admittedly not heard of for five or six years before the suit, and he is not heard of even now. His son has been impleaded as being a member of the undivided family. The 5th defendant is ex parte. The 6th defendant's mother and guardian, in her written statement, denied that the 5th defendant (her husband) ever took part in the management of the estate. Upon...
(Manna) Vazhmuni Mudali Vs. Nathumuni Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad361
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff instituted on 14th February 1921 a suit for taking of partnership accounts between him and defendants 1 and 2 and for the recovery of the amount to be found due to him on the taking of the accounts he only defence was that the partner ship ended in a loss and that there was nothing due to the appellants. A decree for Rs. 570 was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 9th April 1923 by the District Munsiff. The present defendant 1 preferred an appeal. On 19th February 1925, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decree and remanded the suit to the District Munsiff for a fresh trial, on the ground that the trial by the District Munsiff was irregular as no preliminary decree seemed to have been passed as should have been done in the case of partnership suits. While remanding the suit the learned Subordinate Judge suggested that the Court of first instance might at the re-trial consider a new ground pressed before the lower appellate Court by the ...
Nallaperumal Chetti Vs. Valliyappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad721
1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, plaintiff 1 claiming to be the legatee under the Will of his grandfather, for an account of the estate and for possession. He also wanted damages for misfeasance and malfeasance of the executors. The executors are defendants 1 and 5. The lower Court passed a decree in plaintiff's favour. Defendant 1's case was that defendant 5 was managing the estate till his disappearance in 1915 and that his management was merely formal, i.e., he merely signed in the deposit account and the receipts Exs. 4 and 4 (a). Defendant 5 was admittedly not heard of for five or six years before the suit and he is not heard of even now. His son has been impleaded as being a member of the undivided family. Defendant 5 is ex parte. Defendant 6's mother and guardian in her written statement denied that defendant 5 (her husband) ever took part in the management of the estate. Upon this issues were raised and the case went to trial. It was found that defe...
N.P. Nallaperumal Chetti Vs. Yalliyappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.7
1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff claiming to be the legatee under the Will of his grandfather, for an account of the estate and for possession. He also wanted damages for misfeasance and malfeasance of the executors. The executors are defendants Nos. 1 and 5. The lower Court passed a decree in plaintiff's favour. The 1st defendant's case was that the 5th defendant was managing the estate till his disappearance in 1915 and that his management was merely formal, i.e., he merely signed in the deposit account and the receipts Exs. IV and IV (a). The 5th defendant was admittedly not heard of for 5 or 6 years before the suit and he is not heard of even now. His son has been impleaded as being a member of the undivided family. The 5th defendant is ex parte. The 6th defendant's mother and guardian in her written statement denied that the 5th defendant (her husband) ever took part in the management of the estate. Upon this issues were raised and th...
Nanna Vazhmumi Mudali Vs. Nathamuni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.342
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff instituted on 14th February, 1921, a suit for taking of partnership accounts between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and for the recovery of the amount to be found due to him on the taking of the accounts. The only defence was that the partnership ended in a loss and that there was nothing due to the appellants. A decree for Rs. 570 was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 9th April, 1923 by the District Munsif. The present 1st defendant preferred an appeal. On 19th February, 1925, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decree and remanded the suit to the District Munsif for a fresh trial, on the ground that the trial by the District Munsif was irregular as no preliminary decree seemed to have been passed as should have been done in the case of partnership suits. While remanding the suit the learned Subordinate Judge suggested that the Court of first instance might at the retrial consider a new ground pressed before the lower Appellate Court...
Appu Pillai Vs. Nataraja Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad225a; 126Ind.Cas.97
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the Municipal Council of Tanjore. He got 99 votes against 100 votes obtained by respondent No. 1, who was declared elected. The petitioner riled a petition challenging the result of the election before the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore and being unsuccessful there has now filed this petition for revision of the lower Court's order.2. The question depends entirely upon whether certain votes should or should not have been rejected. The learned Subordinate Judge has on this point come to certain conclusions. I cannot say that having scrutinized the ballot papers I should have come to the same conclusions, because it appears to me that in each case where there was a second mark, which the learned Subordinate Judge considers in itself sufficient to invalidate the vote as creating a doubt as to voter's intentions, it was produced by folding the paper transversely before the ink was dry. Neverthele...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »