Chennai Court September 1931 Judgments
Andiappan Ambalam and anr. Vs. Subbayya Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad163; 136Ind.Cas.315; 136Ind.Cas.315
1. This revision petition has been brought against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah passed under Order I, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing the defendants in O. S. No. 80 of 1930, on his file to be sued as representative of a community known as the Karaikkudi Nattars which comprises, I understand, some 300 pattadars The plaintiff in that suit, now respondent, holds a promissory note for Rs. 25,000 executed by five persons who, he alleges, were manegers appointed by the community and invested with such powers as borrowing and dealing with the common property, etc Four of these five executants he has impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The 5th defendant is said to be the adopted son of the remaining manager and the 6th defendant is the 5th defendant's natural father, while the 7th defendant is a Receiver in a suit which is simultaneously proceeding for the partition off common properties. The petitioners before me are the 8th and 9th defendants, members of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumarappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Muthuvijaya Raghunatha Muthukumara Vanan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad207; 137Ind.Cas.616; (1932)62MLJ141
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These appeals relate to the ownership of a certain sum of money. To dispose of them, it is unnecessary to refer to more than a few facts. There were five brothers: (1) Adaikkalam Chetty, (2) Veerappa Chetty, (3) Subban Chetty, (4) Rengaii Chetty, and (5) Vaidyalinga Chetty. In 1885, Adaikkalam lent on the mortgage of certain properties a sum of Rs. 13,000 to a person whom we shall call the Zemindar. The deed of mortgage was taken in the name of Adaikkalam. In 1888, the last three brothers (Subban, Rengan and Vaidyalinga) lent to the same person Rs. 4,000 on a second mortgage of those properties. The deed was taken jointly in the names of the three brothers mentiened above. That deed provides for the payment by them of Rs. 13,000 due to the first mortgagee Adaikkalam. He, however, was not paid and the mortgage in his favour remained in force. On the 28th of December, 1905, Vaidyalinga assigned by Ex. II his one-third share in Rs. 4,000 in favour of Adaikkalam. On ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Somasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad171; 136Ind.Cas.319; (1932)62MLJ263
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of cerliururi uponthe Revising Authority of the Saidapet Municipality commanding them to send up to this Court the records relating to certain objections to the preparation of the electoral roll and to quash the proceedings of the Revising Authority of the 25th September, 1931. What happened was that when the Election Officer was preparing the electoral roll objection was put in to the inclusion therein of certain names by the petitioner and those interested with him. The objection was that the names of some persons which were included ought not to be included because although they were assessed to taxes, the)' were not properly so assessed. This means, of course, that the Election Officer was called upon to embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the assessment of these persons by the Municipal authorities. Despite this objection of the petitioner, the names were included in the Elector...
Tag this Judgment!Upadrasta Latchayya Vs. Gudaparti Seethamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ350
Reilly, J.1. In 1906 the brother of defendant 1 mortgaged some land to the mother of the three plaintiffs. After their mother's death the plaintiffs in 1919 brought a suit for sale on that mortgage, O.S. No. 302 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif of Razole, and got a preliminary decree. There was no appeal against that decree. Not long after that decree had been made the plaintiffs discovered that in the mortgage deed Survey No. 166 had been entered by mistake for Survey No. 168, and that that mistake had been repeated in their plaint and in the decree which they had obtained. They then brought the present suit praying for rectification of the mortgage deed by the substitution of Survey No. 168 for Survey No. 166 and for a similar rectification of the decree in O.S. No. 302 of 1919. It was found both by the District Munsif and by the Subordinate Judge on appeal in the present suit that there had been a common mistake by the parties to the mortgage deed and that in consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!U. Latchayya Vs. G. Seethamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad275
Reilly, J.1. In 1906 the brother of defendant 1 mortgaged some land to the mother of the three plaintiffs. After their mother's death the plaintiffs in 1919 brought a suit for sale on that mortgage, O. S. No. 302 of 1919, on the file of the District Munsif of Razole, and got a preliminary decree. There was no appeal against that decree. Not long after that decree had been made the plaintiffs discovered that in the mortgage deed Survey No. 106 had been entered by mistake for Survey No. 168, and that that mistake had been repeated in their plaint and in the decree which they had obtained. They then brought the present suit, praying for rectification of the mortgage deed by the substitution of Survey No. 168 for Survey No. 166 and for a similar rectification of the decree in O.S. No. 302 of 1919. It was found both by the District Munsif and by the Subordinate Judge on appeal in the present suit that there had been a common mistake by the parties to the mortgage deed and that in consequenc...
Tag this Judgment!Suppan Chetti Vs. Yegnanarayana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad141; 136Ind.Cas.316
1. It is not now disputed that the discharge of the mortgage-debt represented by Ex. A by the payment and receipt of a smaller amount than was due can be proved as a fact if it is sepaparable from any oral agreement to vary the terms of the mortgage contract and can be proved without evidence of such an agreement: Balusundara Naicker v. Ranganatha Aiyar A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 794. In this case the plaintiff pleaded such on oral agreement of 25th June 1919. But the learned Subordinate Judge found that the discharge of the mortgage by payment of Rs. 1,500 on 5th July 1919 was true without referring to the alleged agreement to vary the terms of the mortgage and without using any evidence regarding that agreement. It is objected that he used the endorsement of discharge on Ex. A, which it is contended, was inadmissible in evidence because it was unregistered. But that endorsement in our opinion comes within Section 17(2)(11), Registration Act, and need not have been registered.2. Without discuss...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. R.M.A.R.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad151
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued for contribution Under Section 70, Contract Act, towards the cost of certain repairs which ho executed to the tank which irrigates the wet lands of Manavanagari, a village in the Ramnad District. Of this wet land the plaintiff owns of the whole extent 7/8ths. The petitioner before me is defendant 5 and he, with the other defendants, is a trustee of a kattalai which owns a 1/16th share, the remaining 1/16th share in the land being held by one Muhammad Ibrahimsa. The tank also is the common property of these persons in the same proportions. It had fallen out of repair, so that the supply of water for irrigation had diminished and during the years 1923 to 1925 the plaintiff replaced the old and broached bund by a new one at a cost of between Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 6,000. Towards this sum ho claimed a 1/16th contribution, equal to Rs. 372-7-2, from the trustees of the kattalai. The suit was tried on the small cause side and the learned Temporary Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishna Swami Sastri Vs. Syed Ahmed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.777
Curgenven, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 19th defendant, a Receiver in a pending mortgage suit, against the finding of the Subordinate Judge under the 20th issue, 'whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code.' The contention is, of course, that the Receiver is a public officer, and that has not been disputed before me. But the point in issue is whether the suit is against him 'in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity.' I think it is clear that those words refer to a past act and not to any action merely contemplated or threatened. This has been held by a Bench of this Court in Arunachalam Chetty v. David 99 Ind.Cas.284 : 50 M. 239 : 24 L.W.730 : 51 M.L.J.671 : A.I.R.1927Mad.166, which was a suit for a prepetual injunction restraining an Official Receiver from selling certain property which vested in him in insolvency. I am asked to hold that the later Privy Council case, Bhagchan...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Represented by Its Chairman, M.R. Ry. C. Sambas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.346; (1932)62MLJ175
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax in question since the notification contemplated by Section 80 of the District Municipalities Act has not been published by the Municipality. Under this section a notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied will have to be published before levying the tax. In the notification, Ex. II, in this case no specific rate leviable is mentioned. On the other hand it calls for objections. We, therefore, agree with the Lower Court in holding that Ex. II cannot be treated as the final notification contemplated by Section 80.2. As the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax, the other question raised with reference to the correctness of the decision in The Madura, etc., Devasthanams v. The Madura Municipal Council I.L.R. (1928) 51 M. 301 : 54 M.L.J. 625 does not arise for consideration.3. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Vijiaraghava Pillai Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad120; (1932)62MLJ131
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land in question as purchaser from Ponnammal, whose interest in it was as widow of one Poongavana Gownden. It is admitted that his purchase was only of the widow's interest and could not bind the husband's estate. After the date of the plaintiff's sale-deed Ponnammal married again. Defendant 2, who is Poongavana Gownden's mother, contended that on Ponnammal's re-marriage the reversion to Poongavana Gownden's estate fell in to her and that the plaintiff's purchase was no longer of any effect. She and her alienee, defendant 4, contested the suit. The District Munsif made a decree for the plaintiff; but on appeal that was reversed by the Subordinate Judge who found as a fact that Ponnammal had married again after her sale to the plaintiff, disagreeing on that point with the District Munsif. There was a second appeal to this Court, which was disposed of by Odgers, J., as involving only a question of fact and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »