Chennai Court September 1930 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.
C. Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. K. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad300; (1931)60MLJ315
1. The suit which gives rise to this appeal was filed by the widow of one Chengayya Naidu, who died in April, 1918, against her maternal uncle for an account of certain businesses which she alleged he had conducted as her agent. We are only concerned here with a rice mandi business which the defendant carried on from the time of Chengayya Naidu's death up to date of suit. The plaintiff's case was that since her husband did not dispose of this business by will, as he did of some other assets, it was hers by right of inheritance and that the defendant, who held her power of attorney, was only her agent. The defendant contended, on the other hand, that the mandi which Chengayya Naidu had been conducting was closed a few days before his death and that the subsequent business was the defendant's own, to a share in which the plaintiff had no title Nevertheless, in consideration of the facts that she had lost her husband, was his relative and was living with him, he had voluntarily given her ...
Kunhi Kutti Ali and anr. Vs. Muhammad Haji (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad73; (1931)60MLJ450
1. The suit under appeal has been brought as a representative suit by a junior member of a Marumakkathayam Tarwad for a declaration that the pattadharam granted on 18th July, 1922, by defendant 1, who is the present Karnavan, is not valid and binding on the plaintiff, his tarwad or the suit properties and for delivery of the suit properties to the plaintiff on behalf of the tarwad. The tarwad consists of two branches, the descendants of two women, Alliathe and Birambi, who were sisters. The defendants are all of the branch of Birambi, while the plaintiff belongs to that of Alliathe find claims to be the senior anandravan, though this claim is challenged. The plaintiff asserts that the suit pattadharam has been granted by defendant 1 to two members of his own branch with a view to defrauding the plaintiff of the benefit of the great improvements which he has effected to the suit lands, while it prejudices the tarwad, on whose behalf the suit is brought, in that the amount of rental fixe...
(Cheedella) Seethiah and anr. Vs. Aravapalli Mutyalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad106
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants, This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of the plaint mentioned dry land, 6 acres 84 cents, in extent and assessed at Rs. 8-9-0, Government cist, together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff claims the suit property under a gift deed executed to him by the late Cheedalla Venkamma, the widow of Maddi Ramayya, who was an undivided brother of defendant 1 and the adoptive father of defendant 2. The said Venkamma got the suit land under a registered deed of settlement (Ex. C) executed in her favour by defendant 1 for himself and as guardian of defendant 2 (who was then a minor) on 20th October 1910 in satisfaction of her claim for maintenance. This deed was executed in pursuance of the oral directions given by her late husband, for the benefit of the family and with due regard to the worth of the family. The plaintiff states that he became entitled to the suit land by ...
(Pasupuleti) Bangarayya and ors. Vs. Sree Nallapparaju Venkata Subbara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad302
1. Before 1st April 1930 there was a conflict of opinion between the Bombay High Court on the one hand and the Calcutta, Allahabad and Lahore High Courts on the other on the question whether a deed transferring a mortgage decree required registration the view of the latter three High Courts being that: registration was unnecessary. There appears to be no reported decision of this Court on the question. As the preponderance of authority is in favour of the view that registration was unnecessary and as the transfer deed in this case does not on its face disclose what kind of decree is transferred and so may be covered by the view of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jiwan Ali Beg v. Basa Mal [1886] 9 All. 108 we are not prepared to say that the transfer-deed was. inadmissible because it was not registered.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
The Corporation of Madras Vs. the Madras Electric Tramways and the Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Sabapathi Rao and ors. Vs. Sabapathi Press Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1012; 129Ind.Cas.40; (1930)59MLJ826
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I have to deal with this claim in the winding-up proceedings. A creditor, Pola Sankariah by name, applied to the liquidator for payment of his debt, He failed to comply with the request and 1 have now to decide whether the creditor's claim is well founded.2. To make the point at issue clear, I must briefly set forth the course taken by these liquidation proceedings. The petition to wind up this Company (The Sabapathi Press Co., Ltd.) was filed on the 8th of May, 1922. Mr. Justice Kumara-swami Sastri dismissed the petition on 30th November, 1922, holding that no valid grounds existed for making an order of compulsory winding up. Against this order an appeal was filed and, on 5th November, 1924, the Appellate Court set it aside and remanded the petition to the Original Side for fresh disposal. The matter then came up before Mr. Justice Beasley and on the 9th of April, 1927, he made an order referring two questions to the Official Referee. With one of those question...
(Haji A.S.) Abdul Muhammad Rowther and ors. Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad120
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was for recovery of possession of properties from defendants 1,4 and 5. The properties originally belonged to the family of. defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 sued defendants 2 and 3, the coparceners of her husband in O.S. No. 46 of 1914 for the maintenance due to her and for charging the said maintenance on the properties included in that suit. That suit was compromised and a razinami decree was passed in favour of the present defendant 1 After the said decree, defendant 2 sold the suit properties and other properties to the present plaintiff under Ex. A dated 5th July 1917. Subsequently defendant 1 applied for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 46 of 1914 and the suit properties were sold in execution of the decree for recovery of the arrears of maintenance accrued due subsequent to the date of the decree and defendant 1 herself purchased the properties for Rs. 601 under Ex. 4 and obtain...
Nappalli Kandiyilthamasikkum Puthiyottil Kanhiratan Govinda Kurup Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ941
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. On the strength of a lease of immoveable property (lands) granted to him by defendants 1 and 2 by means of the registered Marapat, dated 28th December, 1919 (the original of Ex. B), which was executed by the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2, he filed the present suit to recover possession of those lands from defendants 3 and 4, who are in occupation thereof, as lessees under the tarwad of 1st defendant, under a renewed lease granted by the 14th defendant as Karnavan on 13th January, 1920, as per Ex. I. Both the Lower Courts have held that the plaintiff has not acquired a valid right to the suit property under the lease set up by him and dismissed his suit.2. The 1st defendant belongs to a rich Moplah tarwad. In 1918 and 1919, the then Karnavan, Makki Keyi allotted some properties of the tarwad for the maintenance of 1st defendant (a minor) under the deeds Exs. III and IV. The suit lands are comprised in Ex. IV. There is no doubt that when the melcharth was...
Lakshmi Narayana Ayyar and anr. Vs. Chinnappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad492
ORDERPandalai, J.1. The question in this case is whether a complaint now pending against the petitioners before the Subdivisional Magistrate of Pollachi accusing them of offences under Sections 193, 204 and 471, I. P. C, is incompetent for want of sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C.2. The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant, the two accused; petitioners (who are respectively the karnam and headman of the village) and two others mentioned as complainants' witnesses were elected as members of a Panchayat Court constituted under the Village Courts Act, for the village of Nanjundapuram. The five members were required by a notice given by the Revenue 'Divisional Officer to elect a President on 23rd September 1929. As the notices were given too late, the meeting for the election was in fact held on 27th September at which all the five members were present. The mode of election prescribed by the rules is by ballot by using slips of paper....
Sree Raja Venkata Rangiah Appa Rao Bahadur and anr. Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad175; (1930)59MLJ923
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These three are connected appeals arising out of three suits brought by the plaintiffs (appellants) against the Secretary of State for India in Council as the 1st defendant and some other defendants in possession of the suit lands, in order to establish the plaintiffs' right to resume the suit inams and for a declaration that the 1st defendant had no right to enfranchise these inams and also for the recovery of possession of these lands ejecting the other defendant's therefrom. Both the Courts below have rejected the plaints in these cases under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was not given to the 1st defendant in the manner required by that section. The only question now arising for consideration is, whether the view taken by the Courts below is correct.2. The village in which the suit inams are situate belonged to the 1st plaintiff. It' is admitted in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›