Chennai Court February 1932 Judgments
A. Narasimha Ayyangar Vs. K. Ramayya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad560
Walsh, J.1. I think the preliminary objection that the petition does not lie must prevail. The order was passed by the Subordinate Judge in his capacity of Election Commissioner and it is so heard. Whether that order is right or wrong or the petition which gave rise to it was rightly or wrongly entertained no revision lies against it as he is a persona designata under the new Rulers 3(1)(3).2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Komaraswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Sri Soundareswaraswami Temple
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad542
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Tanjore appointing a receiver in O. S. No. 2 of 1929. Some of the defendants in the suit prefer this appeal. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for partition of his share in a certain village praying that the Court should pass a decree directing that the lands in the suit village be divided by metes and bounds and that the lands appertaining to his 9 and 7/16ths pangus in Scheduls A and C might be delivered to him and that the lands in Schedule B might be so divided, and the lands over which the plaintiffs has to get his melwaram may also be ascertained and the melwaram right in these lands may be delivered to him. In the alternative it was prayed that if it is contended that the lands in the separate enjoyment of the various pangudars have been divided and exclusively belong to them, and if the Court comes to the same conclusion, then the possession of the lands mentioned in Schedule D may be confirmed to th...
Tag this Judgment!Achambat Abdurahiman, Minor, by His Mother Thithachumma and anr. Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad669; (1932)63MLJ357
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This appeal arises in the following way. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 782 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Parpanangadi the suit properties were attached. A petition against such attachment was put in - E.A. No. 166 of 1928 - and the Court found that the petitioners had no right to the property and passed an order dismissing the petition on 1.0th December, 1.928. Against that order an appeal was filed in the District Court which was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ottapalam. After the passing of the order against which the appeal was filed, the appellants filed E. A. No. 1670 of 1928 in the District Munsif's Court of Parpanangadi for a review of the order; and on that review application notice was issued to the respondent to appear by pleader and file objections, and the Court passed its order on 18th January, 1929, rejecting the petition. When the appeal against the order in E.A. No. 166 of 1928 came on for hearing, a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ishwarananda Bharathi Swami Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ254
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This case raises a question of importance. A question was raised before the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, whether the building in which the petitioner resides and in which the worship of the deity Sri Gopalakrishna Devaru is performed was an institution to which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act applies. The Religious Endowments 'Board by its order, dated 27th April, 1927, decided that the institution was a math within the meaning of the Act, after giving notice to the petitioner and holding an enquiry. The petitioner filed a plaint in the District Court of South Kanara on 17th April, 1928, for a declaration that the building in question is not a math within the meaning of the Act nor an institution to which the Act would apply. He also filed an application (O.P. No. 56 of 1928) to the District Court of 'South Kanara to modify or set aside the decision passed by the Board, and that application was filed within one y...
Tag this Judgment!ishwaranada Bharathi Swami Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad593
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This case raises a question of importance. A question was raised before the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, whether the building in which the petitioner resides and in which the worship of the deity of Sri Gopalakrishna Devaru is performed was an institution to which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act applies. The Religious Endowments Board by its order dated 27th April 1927 decided that the institution was a mutt within the meaning of the Act after giving notice to the petitioner and holding an inquiry. The petitioner filed a plaint in the District Court of South Kanara, on 17th April 1928 for a declaration that the building in question is not a mutt within the meaning of the Act, nor an institution to which the Act would apply. He also filed an application (O. P. No. 56 of 1928) to the District Court of South Kanara to modify or set aside the decision passed by the Board, and that application was filed within one year...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. P. Jagannadha Rayanimgar (Deaceased) and Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ827
Reilly, J.1. These four appeals are against orders for rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale in E.P. No. 41 of 1916 on the file of the District Court. The appellant is the judgment-debtor. In Appeals Nos. 62, 64 and 67 of 1928 an objection has been raised by the decree-holder's representative that these appeals have abated. The decree-holder died in June, 1930 and no application to bring his legal representative on record as Respondent in these appeals was made until January of this year. To that objection the judgment-debtor replies that there is no rule of abatement in appeals against orders made in execution proceedings. It is not disputed that, in order that the judgment-debtor may proceed with these appeals, he must bring on record some representative of the decree-holder. But it is contended for him that, as the ordinary rule of abatement does not apply, he has a right to bring the legal representative on record at any time within three years under Article 181 of the Li...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad279
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This being a revision petition I propose to say very little. The lower Courts have both found that the accused instigated railway workers in the event of a strike to lie on the railway line. The accused's version was that he told them to lie along the line. Not only the prosecution evidence of persons knowing Hindustani who heard his speech and the shorthand notes made on the spot of the translation into Tamil, show that he told his hearers to lie on the line but the evidence of his own witnesses does not support his own version.2. However it is not the business of this Court to discuss findings of fact for which there is evidence in revision. As regards the legal question, it is urged that the strike was only a contingent matter and therefore no offence was committed. The illustration to Section 117, I.P.C. shows that an instigation to attack a procession which is going to be held is an offence under the section. It is immaterial therefore whether the accused was, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Sree Rajah Parthasarathy Appa Rao Savayi Aswa Rao B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad697
Ramesam, J.1. These second appeals arise out of suits to set aside enfranchisement of village service inams and are similar to S.A. No. 648 of 1927 batch. They relate to six village. The first village of Chanubanda is a separate estate now owned by Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao one of the sharers of Nidadavole estate. The next three villages Sobbala, Chennavaram and Arlapadu were parts of Komera estate and are now owned by separate owners. Vemagunta is a separate estate by itself and the last village Koduru was originally part of the Rajapetta estate. All these estates are mentioned in the notification at p. 176 of the Fort. St. George Gazette dated 8th February 1910, the same as the notification in S.A. No. 648 batch and probably formed part of the ancient zamindari of Jamulavayi Medurghat. The first village with which we are concerned is the village of Chanubanda. The first question that arises is the question of limitation. In para. 10 of the plaint the date of the cause of action is...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Goundar and ors. Vs. Maruthamuthu Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad668; 147Ind.Cas.501
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs as trustees of the plaint mentioned temple in the village of South Therku Poyyur for the recovery of possession of a plot of land 71 cents in extent as belonging to the temple and also for the recovery of mesne profits. The plaintiffs' case is that this land is a Blacksmith's service manyam land which originally belonged to the mirasidars of the village and was subsequently gifted by them to the temple. The suit land which is comprised in survey No. 83/2-X according to the old survey is included in the pattah, Ex. A which stood in the name of the temple and other prominent mirasidars of the village. The defendant and his ancestors have no doubt been in possession and enjoyment of this land for a pretty long time. A number of documents have been filed on the plaintiff's side which have been duly considered by the learned District Munsif who came to the conclusion that the temple is the real owner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Javvaji Venkataratnamma Vs. Javvaji Seetaratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad408
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance. Plaintiff is the widow of one Ramamohana Rao, who died in December 1923 aged about 15. His father was one Gantayya, now also deceased, and the defendant is the widow of Gantayya. The points taken in appeal are that the award of Rs. 60 per mensem for current maintenance, of arrears at the same rate and of costs upon the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff are excessive.2. As regards the first point we find some slight difference between the estimated income which the lower Court has arrived at and the conclusion we would draw from the facts. (Here his Lordship discussed the evidence and proceeded.) We think, that irrespective of the proceeds of the promissory note for Rs. 10,000 which the plaintiff received in respect of the katnam the figure awarded by the lower Court is reasonable and need not be modified.3. The second point has reference to the rate of arrears. The award has been made at the same rate as for the curr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »