Chennai Court March 1932 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad376; (1933)64MLJ172
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff is the Valia Raja of Kadathanad, having succeeded to the title on the death of the previous holder, Krishna Varma, in 1919. In 1918 Krishna Varma Valia Raja had subscribed for six war bonds of Rs. 1000 each and 60 Post Office cash certificates of Rs. 100 each. The point for decision in this case is, who became entitled to these assets upon Krishna Varma's death. The succession to the Sthanam, which comprises an estate as well as the title of Valia Raja, is regulated by the usual Malabar rule; there are two Kovilagams, called respectively the Edavalath and the Ayancheri Kovilagam, and the senior male member of the Kovilagams combined succeeds as Valia Raja. Krishna Varma himself derived from the Ayancheri Kovilagam, his successor the plaintiff from the Edavalath Kovilagam. The general proposition is not now disputed before us that on the death of a Valia Raja such of his assets as originated from the income of the Sthanam go to the Kovilagam from which he s...
Tag this Judgment!Moidi Beary Vs. the President, Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad535
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted of an offence Under Section 159 (1) read with Section 207 (1c), Madras Local Boards Amendment Act. He was served with a notice to remove a tiled structure comprising a shop and a dwelling house which he had built on road poramboke vested in Taluk Board land in S. No. 65A/ 1A-1 in mile 1/5 of the Ullal village on 7th February 1931. The only question in this case is whether having been charged and acquitted in respect of the same encroachment on 21st July 1930 he can again be prosecuted and convicted. The lower Court has relied on the ruling in Narayana Ayyar v. Rakupayal [1927] M.W.N. 645. That is a decision of a single Judge Wallace, J., but it appears to be quite indistinguishable from the present case. As stated there Ramanujachariar v. Kailasam Ayyar A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1067, a decision of a single Judge, has not been followed in Ramachandra Chetti v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Salem A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 763, a Bench decision. It...
Tag this Judgment!The Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad207; (1933)64MLJ320
Stone, J.1. The facts in this case are simple and can be stated as follows:The appellants whom I shall hereafter refer to as the Bank lent one C.K.N., now an insolvent, money by various loans. These loans were arranged in order to finance the purchase by C. K. N. of groundnuts.C. K. N. was a large buyer of groundnuts. He purchased on credit. Sometimes he received delivery in the various centres in the mofussil; sometimes he received delivery in Madras. In the former case he was the consignor and the consignee; in the latter case he was the consignee mentioned in the various railway receipts relating to these various consignments during their transit by rail. Transit was by a carrier hereafter referred to as the Port Trust. The immediate destination in all cases was the Port Trust godowns at Madras. The goods were first placed in Port Trust godowns to await orders. The goods in question were there or en route at the time of the act of bankruptcy.2. That was the course of business pursue...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Settichi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad108; (1932)63MLJ822
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. In O.S. No. 436 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Melur the plaintiff sued for a declaration that a release deed executed by the widow, the 5th defendant, in favour of the reversioners-defendants 1 to 4, was not valid, for the appointment of a Receiver of the estate of the last male-holder inherited by his widow, the 5th defendant, and subsequently said to be in the possession of defendants 1 to 4, and also for directions to defendants 1 to 4 to rebuild a house, belonging to the estate, alleged to have been damaged or pulled down by defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff is the daughter of the 5th defendant and is the sister of the 6th defendant. Defendants 1 to 4 are said to be the gnatis of the husband of the 5th defendant. The learned District Munsif passed a decree declaring that the ultimate reversioners would not be bound by the release deed executed by the 5th defendant in favour of defendants 1 to 4 but that they would be bound to pay the...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanabaggiammal Vs. Mari Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad671
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 330 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsif of Chingleput. In substance the reliefs claimed in the plaint were for three declarations in respect of three alienations made by defendant 1 the widow of the last male holder, the Plaintiff, being the daughter of the last male-holder by a pre-deceased wife of his. The plaintiff valued the reliefs claimed in the plaint at Rs. 3,000 and filed the suit in the District Mumsif's Court. She paid a court-fee of Rs. 45 in respect of the three alienations, Rs. 15 being paid in respect of each alienation. An objection was taken by the defendants to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif to entertain the plaint on the ground that the market value of the properties alienated by defendant 1 would be more than Rs. 3,000. The District Munsif upheld the defendant's and found that the market value would be about Rs. 6,000 and accordingly he directed the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Tadikonda Bhadramma Vs. Tadikonda Parvateesam Ayyavaru (insolvent) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad731; (1932)63MLJ414
Wallace, J.1. These appeals are against the dismissal by the Lower Court of three petitions by a petitioning creditor under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act seeking to avoid certain alleged fraudulent alienations. The alienations attacked date from June and July, 1921. The insolvency petition was filed on 12th October, 1921. The three petitions, which were by the appellant, were put in 1925. The District Judge's order was passed on 29th April, 1927. The District Judge did not finally decide the petitions on the merits, because he discovered during the hearing of the petitions that the insolvent had failed to apply for his discharge within the time granted, and that the time granted had expired on 31st August, 1926. The appellant applied for extension of time but the District Judge refused it and went on to hold that by force of Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the adjudication is automatically annulled and that therefore the three petitions will fail. Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Mara Ramanarasu Vs. Matta Venkata Reddi (Died) and ors. Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad23; (1932)63MLJ598
Reilly, J.1. In O.S. No. 24 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada the appellant before us obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage against one Venkata Reddi for something over Rs. 3,500. In O.S. No. 25 of 1922 he obtained a decree on another mortgage deed executed in his favour by Venkata Reddi's brother, Rami Reddi. In O.S. No. 25 of 1922 he brought the property to sale and himself purchased it for Rs. 1,750 less than what was due on Rami Reddi's mortgage, and for the Rs. 1,750 he obtained a personal decree against Rami Reddi. After that he brought the property covered by Venkata Reddi's mortgage to sale in execution. That sale was held on the 25th October, 1926. A man called Saiyed Murtuza Sahib was the successful bidder at that auction, and he deposited in Court on that occasion Rs. 952-8-0 as 25 per cent, of the amount of his bid. A few days after that sale it is admitted that the decree-holder, Venkata Reddi, and Saiyed Murtuza entered into an agreement, which is...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Mudali Vs. Arunagiri Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad658; 140Ind.Cas.443
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiff's case shortly is, the plaintiff and the four defendants are the five trustees of the suit temple appointed under a High Court scheme in A.S. No. 273 of 1918 Clause 4 of the scheme runs that:one of the trustees shall be the executive trustee by consent in writing of the others and he shall not continue as such for a period execeeding two years.2. Defendant 2 had been the executive trustee under this clause for Fasli 1340. As his time of office had expired, a meeting of trustees was summoned by him for 7th July 1931. Plaintiff and defendants 2 and 4, although served with notice of the meeting, did not choose to attend. At the meeting (see Ex. 3) defendants 1 and 3 were present and defendant 2 sent a letter consenting to the appointment of defendant 1 as executive trustee. The meeting resolved that defendant, should be the executive trustee for Fasli 1341. The plaintiff claims that this appointment of defendant 1 is ultra vires of the scheme, that this is an i...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugasundara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. S. Ratnavelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad33; (1932)63MLJ383
Reilly, J.1. In O.S. No. 5 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput the appellants as trustees of a certain temple obtained a decree for money against Defendant 1 and others. Defendant 1 among others appealed to this Court against that decree in Appeal No. 218 of 1925. Pending that appeal, Defendant 1 applied for stay of execution of the Subordinate Judge's decree, the amount of which we are told by the date of this appeal with interest had come to about Rs. 7,000. The appellants opposed that stay application, and eventually an order was made by Jackson, J., on the stay petition that execution would be stayed if Defendant 1 paid into-Court Rs. 3,500 and gave security for the remainder of the decree and that, if the Rs. 3,500 was paid into Court in accordance with the order, then the present appellants should be allowed to draw it only on giving security for that amount. Defendant 1 paid that Rs. 3,500 into Court and gave security for the remainder of the decree, and t...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.K. Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker Avergal Vs. Muthirulappa Pillai and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad528; 140Ind.Cas.77
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by a raiyat Under Section 112, Madras Estates Land Act, contesting the validity of a notice under that section by the landholder preliminary to a sale of his holding. The plaintiff, the raiyat, in his plaint alleged that the patta tendered to him contained a number of improper terms. It is true the effect of the impropriety of the various terms is merely that the landholder was claiming a larger amount than was properly due. In his written statement the defendant withdrew the attachment proceedings in respect of the excess amount and pleaded its validity to the extent of the rent admittedly due by the plaintiff. He also contended that the plaintiff should deposit the amount he admits, before the suit is maintainable and issue 1 was taken with reference to this. The Court passed an order directing the plaintiff to deposit the amount admitted by him. The plaintiff has so deposited it. On the other issues the Deputy Collector found tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »