Chennai Court February 1931 Judgments
Kathiyumma Vs. Urathel Marakkar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad647
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The parties are Sunni Mahomedana belonging to the Hanafi subject. The question I have to decide is whether the claim of the wife (the plaintiff) for deferred dower is barred by limitation under Article 104, Lim. Act. That article reads thus:By a Mahomodan Three When the mar-for deferred dower. years. riage is dissolved by death or divorce.2. The husband (the defendant) pleads that the talak was validly effected more than three years before the suit and that it is therefore barred. The Munsif overruled this contention and gave judgment for plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, finding that the claim was barred by limitation, dismissed the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge finds that the defendant pronounced a valid talak on 21st July 1919 and requested the Kazi to communicate the fact to the plaintiff who was informed of it by that official on 24th August. On these findings he has held that there was a valid divorce on 21st July 1919 and that the suit filed on 25th July 1...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. Tirunarayana Pillai and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ116
Curgenven, J.1. The main question which this appeal raises is whether the plaintiff or the first defendant is the nearest reversionary heir to the estate of one Venkatakrishna Pillai who died on the 24th October, 1899 leaving considerable property in the Tanjore District. The following genealogical table illustrates the rival claims:Kuttikalivaraya|_________________________________________| |Venkatachala Chandrasekhara| || ________________________| | |Chinnayya Tirumalairaya Ramanuja| | |Venkataranga Tiruvengada Venkatachala| | |Venkatachala Gopalasami Tirunarayana| (Adopted) (1st Deft.)Alamelu Achi|___________________________________| | |Venkatakrishna Gopalaswami Chellam|Ramakrishna(Plaintiff).2. It will be seen that the plaintiff, Ramakrishna Pillai, is the son of Venkatakrishna's sister, Chellam, while the first defendant claims to be the adopted son of one Venkatachala Pillai shown as an agnate belonging to another branch of the family. The left and right hand branches are referre...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Gorantla Raghavulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad607
Pandalai, J.1. These are two second appeals respectively by the Secretary of State for India in Council who was defendant 2 in the suit and defendant 1 who was appointed by the Collector of Guntur in the place of the respondent to do the duty of Village Munsif of Chimakurti village in that district. The facts are not disputed. The office of village Munsif of that village is hereditary and is one governed by the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act 3 of 1895. The holder of that office, a member of the family was dismissed by the Collector and it became necessary to appoint some one to execute the duties of the office. The Sub-Collector of Ongole who is the Collector empowered under the Act being of opinion that any member of the undivided family of the last holder should not he appointed purported to act under Section 10(1) and appointed the respondent who was the Village Munsif of some neighbouring village on the recommendation of the Tahsildar in December 1922. The form of this order...
Tag this Judgment!Grandhi Pothanna Vs. Simhadri Satyananda Charyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad479; (1931)60MLJ698
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam directing him to pay additional Court-fee in a suit for redemption of a mortgage brought by him. The plaintiff is the mortgagor. He now seeks to redeem the usufructuary mortgage created by him and to recover possession of the immovable property together with surplus profits which the mortgagee is alleged to have derived, from out of that property in excess of what was due to him towards the principal and interest. The principal amount of the mortgage bond is admittedly Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff asks for an account of the profits and estimates the amount of surplus profits due to him at Rs. 5,654. He has paid Court-fee on the sum of Rs. 1,500 which is the principal amount of the mortgage bond. The learned Subordinate Judge states that the right to redeem is distinct from the right to recover the profits and therefore Court-fee should be paid on...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad668; (1931)61MLJ381
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of East Tanjore in a maintenance suit by a widow against her son, the 1st defendant, and grandson, the 2nd defendant. The suit was for arrears of past maintenance, for a declaration of the amount of future maintenance and to make the defendants liable to pay certain other sums demanded by the plaintiff. The Lower Court refused the prayer for past maintenance and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 500 a year for future maintenance, and to two sums of Rs. 400 for vratams and Rs- 500 for pilgrimage and that the defendants 'do pay' these amounts. Defendants appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any memorandum of cross-objections or cross-appeal against the disallowance of past maintenance, or the rate of future maintenance, or the cash allowances.2. The case before us turns on the general question how far, if at all, a widow can sue for maintenance when she has or ought to have in her hands sufficient joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Chetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad490
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 under Section 194, Madras Local Boards Act 1920 for installing machinery without a license. He applied for license on 4th September 1928 and his application never came before the Union Board, so by provision of Sub-clause 4 in the 1920 Act he would be deemed to have obtained permission by 4th December 1928. A mahazar was sent to the Board asking it to grant him permission to 'begin machine work' and this was permitted by the Board on 21st November 1928. The learned appellate Magistrate finds that this was only permission to use the premises under Section 193 and not permission to install the machinery under Section 194. This is to press the case against an accused. He had applied for leave to install, and leave to install was what the president refused on 24th October 1928. It was that refusal which inspired the mahazar on the same day, 24th October 1928, and obviously what the people wanted was the permission for what the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Zarab Khan Vs. Lal Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad740
Ramesam, J. 1. In this case the point that arises for decision is one of Mahomedan law. The facts may be stated as follows : One Mohideen Khan died on 11th January 1917 issueless after having suffered from beriberi for two or three months before his death. Before his death he executed two documents (described as gift deeds) namely, Exs. 2 and 3, dated 13th November 1916 and 8th January 1917, respectively. We have nothing to do at present with the second deed in this case. When Mohideen Khan died he left behind him a widow, defendant 1, a brother Dada Sahib and two sisters, defendants 2 and 3. According to Mahomedan law if he had died intestate, the widow would be entitled to 1/4th, Dada Sahib to 3/8ths and defendants 2 and 3 each to 3/16ths share of his property. Dada Saheb ignoring the gift deeds sold his 3/8th share in Mohideen Khan's property to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 28th November 1922: Ex. A. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the gift de...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Rao Vs. Sathiapria Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad768
ORDERJackson, J.1. There is no provision in law by which the Sessions Judge can direct the Additional. District Magistrate to prefer a complaint under Section 476-13, Criminal P. C. The Superior Court may it-self make the complaint.2. The order of the Sessions Judge is accordingly cancelled....
Tag this Judgment!Subbaratnammal Vs. Seshachala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ615
1. In this case it appears that the appellant is a resident of Mysore. It is clearly against the intention of the Guardian and Wards Act that any one residing outside British India should be appointed guardian of a minor's person, as over such a guardian the Court could not exercise its proper control--see Batcha Chetty v. Ponnuswami Chetty : (1912)22MLJ68 . The appellant, therefore, cannot herself be appointed guardian of the minor under the Act. For this reason without going into any of the other questions raised we find it unnecessary to interfere in the appellant's favour with the order of the learned District Judge. This will not preclude the appellant from seeking any other remedy open to her.2. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Srila Sri Vythilinga Padara Sannadhi Avergal, Athinakarth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ815
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued to establish his right as hereditary trustee of the Sri Papavinasaswami Temple at Vikramasingapuram village in Ambasamudram Taluk of the Tinnevelly District and for certain consequential reliefs. The plaint alleges that the temple committee, the 1st defendant, in disregard of the plaintiff's hereditary right as trustee, had held that he had vacated office under Section 51 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and had appointed the 2nd defendant as sole trustee of the temple. The learned Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly has found that a suit of this character is barred by the provisions of the Act above referred to, and this is the sole question which we have to decide in appeal. 2. There is ample authority for the view that a suit to establish a personal right of this character does not fall within the terms of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that in Subramania Pillai v. Krishnaswami Somayajiar I.L.R. (1919) 42 M. 668 a sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »