Chennai Court August 1932 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.
Ramanuja Krishna Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Ramanuja Alwarappa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad70; 140Ind.Cas.197; (1932)63MLJ703
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The only point for consideration in this second appeal is, whether the plaintiff's suit, so far as it asks for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the Trust properties in rotation by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, is maintainable in this form, or in other words, whether Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar to the maintainability of this suit so far as the above-mentioned prayer is concerned. The trial Court was of opinion that such relief could be granted only in a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, whereas the lower appellate Court came to a different conclusion and held that that relief could be granted to the plaintiff even in this form of action. The question is not altogether free from difficulty. There is, no doubt, that the trust mentioned in the plaint was created for public purposes of a charitable nature. The plaintiff's status as a co-trustee along with defendants 1 and 2 and his right to be in joint possession o...
(Allam) Narasimhulu and ors. Vs. (Gutta) Bhadrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad10
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected appeals and arise out of a suit brought by plaintiff (respondents) for a declaration that only the raiyats of the lands within the ayacut of Selavani and Karicherlavari tanks are entitled to use the water flowing through the suit Solavani channel and that the defendants have no right to use that water for cultivating as wet their lands on either side of the channel and for an injunction restraining them from taking the water of the channel to their lands for wet cultivation by putting up cross bunds or palmyrah spouts and also for directing the defendants to restore the channel to its original condition. Both the lower Courts have found the plaintiffs' contention to be substantially true and passed a decree in their favour, granting the reliefs asked for by them subject to a slight qualification, S.A. No. 470 of 1930 has been filed by defendant 12 and 8. A. No. 334 of 1930 by some of other defendants, Plaintiffs and others own about 400 acres o...
Allam Narasimhulu and ors. Vs. Gutta Bhadrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.311
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected appeals and arise out Of a suit brought by plaintiffs (respondents) for a declaration that only the ryots of the lands within the ayacut of Solavani and Karicherlavari tanks are entitled to nee the water flowing through the suit Solavani Channel and that the defendants have no right to use that water for cultivating as wet their lands on either side of the channel and for an injunction restraining them from taking the water of that channel to their lands for wet cultivation by putting up cress bunds or palmyrah spouts and also for directing the defendants to restore the channel to its original condition. Both the lower Courts have found the plaintiffs' contention to be substantially true and passed a decree in their favour granting the reliefs asked for by them subject to a (light qualification. Second Appeal No. 470 of 1920 has been filed by the 12th defendant, and S.A. No. 334 of 1920 by some of the other defendants.2. Plaintiffs and others o...
Muhammad Abu Bakkar Maracair (Deceased), Azimuddin, Legal Representati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ401
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The facts of the case are clearly stated in the appellate Judge's judgment and need not be re-stated. The question is whether the third application for execution is barred by limitation. Prior to the third application the decree-holder had made another application, the second one in sequence of time, dated 21st June, 1928. That was returned for correcting certain defects and was re-presented only along with the third petition filed on 19th June, 1929. No final orders have been passed on the second application as yet. Time for considering whether the third application is within the period of limitation is to be calculated according to Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act in its amended form from the date of the final orders on the last application; that will be the second application in the present case. As no final orders on the second application have been passed that application is still pending and at present no question for limitation arises. Vide judgment ...
Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. Sethuram Rao Alias Lakshmikantha Sastriar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad322; (1933)64MLJ354
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff (1st respondent) for specific performance of an agreement to re-sell the plaint-mentioned site. The plaintiff's case is, that the suit site belonged to his adoptive father, that it was sold during the minority of the plaintiff by his natural father as his guardian to 1st defendant's father on 14th December, 1912, under a registered sale deed, that there is a stipulation in the sale deed for the reconveyance of the property to the plaintiff and his heirs for the original price itself, that in violation of that contract the 1st defendant sold the property to the 2nd defendant on 6th December, 1923, that this sale is not binding on the plaintiff and that he is entitled to enforce specific performance of the agreement to re-sell on tendering the purchase money and get a conveyance in his favour. The defendants attacked the plaintiff's claim on several grounds and contended that he was not entitled to speci...
Nallakaruppan Ambalam and anr. Vs. Vellamarunthan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad374
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two connected suits for setting aside a sale for arrears of rent, after declaring the same to be illegal, and also in the alternative for possession. The first Court decreed those suits in favour of the plaintiffs and those decrees have been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Land NO. 130 is the subject-matter of O.S. No. 23 of 1926 and land No. 140 is the subject-matter of O.S. No. 453 of 1925. Both these lands were originally comprised in patta, No. 57 which stood in the name of plaintiff l in O.S. No. 453 of 1925. It appears that patta included some other lands also. By reason of a sale effected in favour of one Velayutha, the patta in respect of lands Nos. 139, and 140 was transferred to his name and a fresh patta viz., patta No. 2, was also issued to him. For arrears of rent these two lands wore brought to sale under the Estates Land Act; but it is admitted that no notice of the intention to sell as required by Section 112 ...
Muthusami Pillai Vs. Government Tahsildar of Ramnad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad434
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner was convicted in the trial Court of offences punishable under Sections 170 and 175, I.P.C. On appeal the conviction under Section 175 was set aside on the ground that the complaint as to it was not made as prescribed in Section 195, Criminal P.C., but the conviction under Section 170 was upheld though with a large reduction of sentence.2. The point is now taken on revision that the trial of the two offences together was illegal as being contrary to the provisions of Sections 233 and 235, Criminal P.C. I think that the point is taken correctly. I cannot see how the petitioner's failure to hand over records on his ceasing to hold office on 22nd June 1930 can be regarded as part of the same transaction as his forwarding to the District Munsif, on 22nd July 1930 and 20th November 1930, copy applications in forwarding which he improperly described himself as Headman and Village Munsif, even if he forwarded with the copy applications the records to which t...
P. Rama Naidu (Deaceased) and ors. Vs. Rangayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad114; (1932)63MLJ899
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. One Rama Naidu applied in the Lower Court for probate of the will of the deceased. Certain persons entered a caveat and the proceeding became a contentious one. The Lower Court, holding that the will has not been proved to be genuine, refused probate and Rama Naidu filed the present appeal and died before the hearing. His sons have been brought on the record and an objection has been taken as to their legal competence to prosecute the appeal, and that is the first question we have to decide.2. Rama Naidu besides being the executor is also the residuary legatee. We cannot as a Court of probate decide questions of construction; but it is not disputed that, in any view, Rama Naidu's sons would be beneficiaries. If the estate taken by the deceased was an absolute one, his sons, on his death, become entitled to the legacy as his heirs; if, on the other hand, the bequest is to be construed as conferring on him only a life estate, the sons, by reason of the words ' his ...
Chitti Babu Mudaliar Vs. A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad264
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This is an appeal against the decree passed by the learned City Civil Court Judge in O.S. No. 167 of 1929 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that a suit of the nature brought by him is not maintainable under Section 9, Civil P.C. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration that the right to conduct Aroodra Utsavam at the Sree Kabalee swarar temple at Mylapore is vested in his family and that he being the Senior member of it is solely entitled to conduct the said Utsavam as Ubayakar or Kattalaidar. This is stated in para. 3 of the plaint. In para. 5 it is stated that the trustees of the temple, the defendants, denied the right of the plaintiffs and of the members of his family and denied to them the rights and honours appertaining to the Utsavam and the conduct thereof. It was conceded before the learned City Civil Court Judge that in so far as the suit was one for mere 'honours,' it does not lie. This, concession having been...
M. Chengayya Pantulu, Commissioner, Representing the Board of Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad57; 140Ind.Cas.769; (1932)63MLJ780
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. These petitions by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board arise from applications under Section 53, Clause (4) of Act I of 1925, the first Hindu Religious Endowments Act which was afterwards repealed by Act II of 1927. The applications were severally for the modification of schemes which had been settled in respect of three temples by the Civil Courts and were made on the 3rd January, 1927, when the first Act was still in force. They were opposed by the counter-petitioners concerned and were dismissed by the learned District Judge on a preliminary point. That point is that applications under Section 53(4) will not lie in respect of schemes settled by Courts before the Act and will lie only in respect of schemes settled subsequently. For this opinion the learned Judge relied on a decision of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in Chinnan v. Sundaresa : AIR1929Mad322 .2. That was not a decision on this point, although there is an observation to the effect that the scheme under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »