Chennai Court August 1930 Judgments
Adivi Suryaprakasa Rao and ors. Vs. Tummalapalli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.249; (1930)59MLJ918
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur in a suit for a declaration that the order in Execution Petition No. 827 of 1920 in the Additional District Munsif's Court of Bhimavaram and the proceedings consequent are not binding on the plaintiffs, and for other consequential reliefs.2. The 1st plaintiff is the father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The 1st defendant sued the plaintiffs for certain property with mesne profits in Original Suit No. 319 of 1917 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Bhimavaram, and got a decree for delivery with past mesne profits at Rs. 250 per annum and future mesne profits at the same rate. The decree was appealed against by the plaintiffs and the judgment of the Appeal Court in A. S. No. 147 of 1919, Temporary Sub-Court, Masuli-patam, is the final judgment in that suit. The Appear Court confirmed the decree for delivery and past mesne profits, but directed that future mesne profits should be determined i...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Raghavachari Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad135; (1931)60MLJ137
Bardswell, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He is Monegar of a village in the North Arcot District within about three miles of the Chingleput District border. He claims to be ekabhoga mirasidar of the suit village, Melwarma. The word 'ekabhogam,' according to the Glossary in the North Arcot District Manual of 1895, means the possession or tenure of all the lands of a village by a single individual or family without any co-sharer. Survey No. 128-1, the extent of which is 66/83 acres, has been assigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Cheyyar to some Adi Dravidas of a neighbouring village and the plaintiff says that the grant is in violation of his right to the said land as, in his capacity as ekabhoga mirasidar, he and his ancestors before him have been in exclusive possession of all the village lands, including waste, poramboke and communal lands. Even if the Government reclaims any waste land for the purposes of cultivation and in the interests of revenue it has no right to a...
Tag this Judgment!Muthyala Narayanappa Vs. Muthyala Ramachandrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad28; 129Ind.Cas.638; (1931)60MLJ676
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The parties to these cases before us are brothers. By an agreement, dated 31st October, 1926, the parties agreed to have their disputes relating to partition settled by three specified arbitrators. During the course of the arbitration proceedings one of the arbitrators died. One of the brothers filed O.S. No. 8 of 1929 on 22nd March, 1929, against his brother. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 applied under para. 18 of the second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the suit stayed. The Court held that the arbitration could go on with a fresh arbitrator that may be appointed by the Court. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 preferred an appeal against that order, and the learned District Judge set aside that order, holding that the arbitration agreed to between the parties could not go on, as one of the arbitrators was dead, and as there was no provision in the agreement regarding the appointment of a substitute in the place of the arbitrator ...
Tag this Judgment!Atmakuru Butchiah Chetti Vs. S. Tayar Rao Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad399; 129Ind.Cas.818; (1931)60MLJ721
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The facts which have given rise to these appeals are as follows:The plaintiff, whom we may call Appanna, and the 1st defendant, whom we may call Butchiah, were brothers. O.S. No. 30 of 1922 was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam. for partition of the family property worth three or four lakhs. Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit were minors represented by their guardian, the 1st defendant. In 1923 there was a compromise with reference to certain outstandings due to the family and certain decree debts whereby the 1st defendant was to take over the plaintiff's share in the outstandings and the plaintiff was to be paid Rs. 17,000. This compromise is dated the 23rd of October, 1923 and was filed into Court on the 29th of October. It was signed by the plaintiff's pleader on the 27th of October and by the defendants' pleader on the 29th of October. It only related to some of the family properties and it was sanctioned by the Court so far as the minor member...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad138
Pandalai, J.1. Petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Ramnad dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 57, Local Board's Act, to be declared entitled to continue as a member of the Taluk Board of Sivaganga and as such also a member of the District Board of Ramnad.2. The petitioner was elected in 1927 as a member of the Taluk Board of Sivaganga and was also elected by that Board in 1927 to the District Board of Ramnad. The question to be decided was whether the petitioner having admittedly failed to attend meetings of the Taluk Board for three consecutive months February to May 1930, he had not ceased to hold office by virtue of Section 56(h) of the Act. That meetings were held on 27th February 1930, 29th March 1930, 29th April 1930 and 17th May 1930, and that the petitioner was absent at all of them, was admitted. The petitioner's absence was due to his being at Rangoon. His case before the learned Judge appears to have been that on his leaving for Ra...
Tag this Judgment!(Komanduru) Sampath Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Sri Govinda Krishna Yachandr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad51; 129Ind.Cas.828
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These second appeals relate to the question whether the Rajah of Venkatagiri is entitled to claim the full amount of jodi for faslis 1332 and 1333 due from the appellants (defendants 1 and 3 in both the suits) who are the agraharamdars of the villages of Sakti Ganeshwarapuram and Kunnam Kulattur. The liability to pay the jodi was not disputed by the agraharamdars; but they contended that they are entitled to deduct from the amount claimed the amount of peishcush due on these villages which they had paid to the Government for the faslis in question. The deduction was claimed under Section 35, Act 2 of 1864, and Section 70, Contract Act. On the first ground, which was the only ground pressed in the lower appellate Court, the Subordinate Judge found against the agraharamdars' contention. Both the grounds are urged before me in second appeal.2. The facts are briefly these: The two villages of Sakti Ganeshwarapuram and Kunnam Kulattur formed part of the Kalahasti Zaminda...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras, as th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad251; (1931)60MLJ355
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Walleir, J., passed in the insolvency of P.L.N.K. Subramaniam Chetty. The applicant, now appellant, was one P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chetty, son of a brother of the insolvent, and he claimed a preferential right to certain trust moneys said to be included in the funds in the Official Assignee's hands. At a partition in 1916 between the insolvent on the one hand, and the appellant and his brother Lakshmanan Chetty on the other, two sums each of Rs. 10,000 subscribed to as to 3/8 by the insolvent and as to 5/8 by the brothers:, were set apart' for two charities, with the parties to the partition as co-trustees. In respect of his own and his brothers' share in these trust funds the appellant, on 1st December, 1916, drew two hundiesi in favour of the insolvent on a firm at Madras known as the O. R. M. O. M. S. P. Firm (I will refer to it for short as the O.R.M. Firm). The insolvent kept the amounts of the hundies in deposit with this firm until ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abdul Samad Saheb Vs. Sowcar KamaruddIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad192
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings under a consent decree awarding the decree-holder the sum of Rs. 5,845-10-8 to be realized out of the assets of one Nur Muhamad Usman Saheb, deceased, in the hands of the defendants and out of the assets in their hands of the business in which he was a partner. Of the defendants, the first and second were surviving partners, while the third was the widow of the aforesaid Nur Muhamad Usman Saheb. The earliest execution application to which we have been referred was to transfer the decree to the Sub-Court of Shimoga, and this was ordered on 7th December 1927. Then while execution was pending there, on 24th February 1928, the decree-holder assigned the decree to the present appellant. In E.P. 146 of 1928 this transferee decree-holder applied under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., for leave to execute the decree and to continue the proceedings at Shimoga. This was ordered on 19th April 1928, the order reciting that the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.S.P. Subramanian Chetti Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad603a
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is filed against an order passed by Kumara-swami Sattri, J., in insolvency, setting aside a deed of transfer executed by the Official Assignee in respect of five decrees, part of the assets of the insolvent, in Petition No. 127 of 1925. The first of these decrees, in O.S. No. 318 of 1924, was, with costs and interest up to 1924, for a sum of Rs. 771-13-0 and, with appellate costs and further interest, would amount in face value at the time of the transaction to some eight or nine hundred rupees. The remaining four decrees were nominally worth in all about Rs. 170, but it is only with the decree in O.S. No. 318 of 1924 that we are substantially concerned. The insolvent was a widow and had two brothers, Subramania Chetti and Palaniappa Chetti. The latter of these, it is admitted, was managing her estate; it was to the former, Subramania Chetti, that the deed of transfer was executed by the Official Assignee, Mr. Wilson, on 25th April 1928. The notice of motion...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.V. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ299
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of Palghat Municipality, was convicted, and fined by the 1st Class Bench of Magistrates in both the above cases. In Case No. 24 he was convicted for failure to produce his 31-year old child for vaccination as required by a notice served on him on 23rd September, 1929, an offence falling under Section 300 of the District Municipalities Act read with Rules 2 (1) and 11 (1) (a) of the rules framed by Government under that section and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3 or to suffer 3 days' simple imprisonment in default. In Case No. 25 he was convicted for failure to comply with another notice served on him on the same day, 23rd September, 1929, calling on him to discontinue his previous breach of the vaccination rules, viz., failure to get the same child vaccinated in pursuance of a previous notice, an offence falling under Section 300 of the District Municipalities Act read with Rule 11 (2) of the rules framed by Government und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »