Chennai Court February 1930 Judgments
N. Namberumal Chetti Vs. Veeraperumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad956; (1930)59MLJ596
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit, C.S. No. 300 of 1927, filed by one Namberumal Chettiar against four defendants. The 1st defendant is Veeraperumal Pillai, nephew and executor of the estate of P. Appasami Pillai, who died on the 4th of October, 1921. The 2nd defendant is Kanthammal, the illegitimate daughter of Appasami Pillai. The 3rd defendant is the Official Assignee in whom the property of the 1st defendant is now vested on account of insolvency. The 4th defendant is Mr. S. G. Satagopa Mudaliar, an Advocate of this Court, who was in 1923 the Receiver of another estate which was the subject of a litigation and who in the capacity of such Receiver advanced a loan of 2 1/2 lakhs to the 1st defendant-executor on a deed of mortgage, dated the 10th of April, 1923; and he is impleaded in this suit as such mortgagee.2. The suit was for the administration of the estate of the deceased Appasami Pillai and for the recovery of the balance of legacy of Rs. 15,000 with further int...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thadi Subbi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.72; (1930)59MLJ229
ORDERKrishnan Pandalal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Sessions Judge of East Godavari requesting this Court to quash the committal under Section 213 to that Court of the respondent Thadi Subbi Reddi.2. The respondent was the President of a Co-operative Society. Another person who was committed along with him to the Lower Court was the secretary of the same society. They and three other people were charged with having got up a bond for Rs. 750 purporting to be executed by one Karri Venkata-reddi in favour of the Society, the respondent Subbi Reddi signing it as a surety. The respondent and the secretary are alleged to have, after putting this, upon the record of the cooperative society, handed it over to their successors when they left the office on the 2nd of November, 1928. When the new President filed a suit on the bond before the Assistant Registrar against Karri Venkatareddi, the alleged maker, and the respondent as su...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Gajapathi Krishna Chandra Deo Garu, Zamindar of Nandigam E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad561; (1931)60MLJ662
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the Rajah of Vizianagram against the 1st defendant who is the Zamindar of Pata Tekkali and the 2nd defendant who is the Zamindar of Nandigam for an injunction restraining the defendants or either of them from restoring and improving the irrigation tank called the Padmanabha Sagaram or to construct new weirs at any portion of it so as to affect the rights of the plaintiff in the lands situate in Mallividu and Kallada villages, to direct them to remove the newly placed bund of Padmanabha Sagaram tank at the places where it was breached in 1878 and to remove the newly constructed surplus weir, or in the alternative for damages, which the plaintiff estimates at Rs. 1,000 per annum.2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:--The estates of Tekkali and Nandigam formerly formed one estate known as the Tekkali Estate. The Padmanabha Sagaram tank was constructed ab...
Tag this Judgment!Josyula Venkateswaralu Vs. Kasturi Seshagiri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad708a
Cornish, J.1. In this matter the suit was filed in the Village Munsif's Court on 30th October 1928. On 2nd November 1928 the defendant who had filed no written statement applied to the District Munsif, under Section 21, Village Courts Act, to have the suit transferred to the District Munsif. On 7th November 1928, the District Munsif granted an interim stay of trial of the suit in the Village Munsif's Court; but this order was not communicated to the Village Munsif, till 20th November 1928. Meanwhile, on 8th November 1928, the Village Munsif heard the case, examined the plaintiff and his witness and passed a decree ex parte, the defendant not appearing. Section 21 provides that the District Munsif may, on the application of any of the parties, withdraw any suit and try the suit himself, as if it had been instituted in his own Court. But this provision presupposes that the suit still remains to be tried. In the present case, the suit bad been decreed before the District Munsif's order re...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Ganapathi Mudali Vs. Daivasikamani Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad94; 129Ind.Cas.824
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore on two issues in Original Suit No. 49 of 1929. This' suit was filed by the present petitioner against his father and stepbrother for a partition of the family properties. Prior to the filing of the suit there had bean a deed of partition but the plaintiff alleges in his plaint that he was threatened by his father and others with violence and otherwise to sign it without knowing its contents properly and without realizing its full effect and compelled to yield to the pressure brought to bear on him, that when the document was afterwards presented for registration he came to know of the nature and import of the document and realised the fraud committed on him and refused to agree to its registration. He also alleges that the share of the defendants was grossly undervalued, while the properties allotted to him were overvalued, many items of properties and considerable cash have been omitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Tholeti Ramiah and anr. Vs. Konala Brahmiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ196
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Lakshmanna has argued this case at great length, but I am afraid I cannot uphold his contention. The facts may be briefly stated. The property belonged to Ramiah, who was the last full owner. During his minority, his mother, acting as his guardian, sold the property in 1873 to a person through whom the defendants claim. Ramiah died whilst still an infant in 1879 or 1880. After his death, his mother, as his heir, took possession of his other property and died in 1921. This suit was brought in 1922 by a reversionary heir for recovery of the suit item. Both the Lower Courts have held that the suit is barred by limitation. Mr. Lakshmanna contends that this decision is wrong,2. Article 44 of the Limitation Act runs thus:Description of Suit Period of Time from which period Limitation. begins to run.By a ward who hasattained majority, to Three years. When the ward attainsset aside a transfer majority.of property by hisguardian.3. Mr. Lakshmanna's argument is, that a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhyraraju Ramaraju Vs. Pulavarthi Lakshmiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad103
Ramesam, J.1. The facts which give rise to this revision petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner before me obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 617 of 928 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku against four judgment-debtors. In execution of that decree he brought certain properties belonging to all the judgment-debtors to sale. The sale was effected on 2nd April '1929. Prior to the sale he applied under Order 21, Rule 72 for permission to bid in the auction and to set off the purchase amount against his decree as far as it goes. This application was ordered. When the sale was made on 2nd April 1929, giving operation to the order for set-off nothing was deposited by the petitioner nor was he asked to make any deposit. The respondent before me obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Narasapur against three of the four judgment-debtors of the other 'suit. On 11th April 1929 he applied before the Subordinate Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appavu Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad377; (1931)60MLJ488
Ramesam, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before me in this second appeal. The suit properties, a house and land, belonged to one Angammal, maternal aunt of the plaintiff. She gave them to the plaintiff and his brother Maria Pillai by a registered deed, dated the 25th of October, 1925, Ex. A. Maria Pillai is dead and the plaintiff is his heir. The plaintiff filed the suit within 12 years after the date of the gift. The defendants pleaded that the gift was fraudulent, whatever that might mean. They also pleaded that they were reversioners to Angammal. The: District Munsif found that neither Angammal nor her donees were in possession of the property within 12 years prior to suit and therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found that Angammal was in possession until the date of the gift deed and there was therefore no question of adverse possession. He also found that the gift deed was a genuine transaction intended to be given effect to, and given effect to an...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Through the Authorised Agent Guruswami A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad988; 129Ind.Cas.63; (1931)60MLJ79
Wallace, J.1. This appeal and the civil revision petition relate to the same matter, an order passed by the District Court of West Tanjore. The civil revision petition is put in by way of caution in case this Court holds that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not lie. The respondents have in fact taken a preliminary objection that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not lie,, but the discussion on that point is more easily set out if we deal first of all with the case on the merits.2. The facts necessary for disposal are: The parties to these proceedings are some of the parties to what is known as the Tanjore Palace Estate suit, an interpleader suit filed by the Receiver of the Estate to determine who were the rightful owners. The chief contesting respondents before us are the defendants known as the Mangalavilas defendants, originally defendants. 4 to 11. A preliminary decree in that suit was passed on the 1st of July, 1918. It awarded 3/4th share to these defendants. Appeals were p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Reddy Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad235
ORDERPandalai, J.1. From the facts stated by the Subdivisional Magistrate, it is clear that the appellant was not, as indeed he could not be, entrusted with the promissory note in question, because he was upon the arrangement, in pursuance of which the note was taken in his name and given to him, not a mere name-lender but the holder of the note entitled to sue on it, and realize the amount due under it subject, of course, to the obligation to pay off the lessees before or after, such realization. In short the appellant was the legal owner of the note, though the proceeds of the note wore to be used by him, in a particular way to pay off the lessees or reimburse himself if he had previously paid the lessees.2. There can be no entrustment and therefore no breach of trust in such oases merely because the owner of the property repudiates his obligations or commits other breach of contract in respect of them. The property, in respect of which criminal breach of trust can be committed, 'mus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »