Chennai Court August 1933 Judgments
V. Kothandapani Chetti Vs. K.C. Sreemanavedan Raja Alias Valia Kunhi T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad162; (1934)66MLJ625
Vepa Ramesam, Kt., C.J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Kothandapani Chetty for directing accounts to be taken of a partnership entered into between the plaintiff and the West Coast Company, the partners of which are the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant. The partnership related to the working of timber in certain forests. The date of the partnership is 8th, December, 1918. The husband of the 2nd defendant Srinivasaraghavacharya died in April, 1920. The present suit was filed on 14th July, 1925, against the 1st defendant, one of the original partners, defendants 2 to 5, the legal representatives of the deceased Srinivasaraghavacharya, and the 6th and 7th defendants, vendees of the leasehold property from the 1st defendant and Srinivasaraghavacharya. 26 issues were framed in the case, but all the issues were not tried. The suit was disposed of with reference to the findings of the Subordinate Judge on issues 7, 8, 10, 12 and 18 only. Issues 7 an...
Tag this Judgment!Pyda Ramakrishnayya Garu and anr. Vs. Kuchipudi Naganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad865; (1933)65MLJ775
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Deputy Collector of Kovvur returning the plaint filed by the petitioners in the Revenue Court for presentation before a Civil Court having jurisdiction.2. The facts are briefly these. In Summary Suit No. 100 of 1 26 the petitioners obtained a decree against the pattadar holding lands under patta No. 125 of the village of Anna-devarapeta. A portion of the lands had come into the hands of the 1st respondent by purchase on the 6th of June, 1929. In execution of their decree the petitioners attached these lands and then the 1st respondent put in a claim petition objecting to the attachment under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st respondent's claim after enquiry was allowed by the Revenue Court on the 11th of October, 1929. Before the expiry of a year from that date the petitioners filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for the establishment of their claim to the property in dispute. This s...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhara Rao Vs. Kudkoli Srinivasa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad81; 147Ind.Cas.936
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question of law that arises for decision in all these five cases is:Whether a grandfather can make a gift of ancestral property (in these oases the gift is money with which mortgages were taken) in favour of his grandson, i.e. daughter's son. 2. Reasonable gift by a father in favour of the daughter at the time of, or even after, her marriage, and gifts by a brother in favour of his sister, in suoh circumstances, have all been upheld by deoisions according to Hindu law. These decisions are based on the interpretation of texts but no text has been brought to my notice in support of the appellant's contention in these oases. In Ponnuswami v. Thatha (1886) 9 Mad 273, a gift of im-moveable property made by a donor in favour of his grandson was successfully questioned by the donor's brother. Acceptance of the learned Counsel's argument would mean an extension of Hindu law not warranted by any text or decision, however much the circumstances may show that the gift shou...
Tag this Judgment!Prativadi Bhayankaram, Tiruvenkatacharyulu and ors. Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ715
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated. There used to be an ancient estate known as the estate of Bellamkonda in Sattempalli Taluk of the present Guntur District but formerly Kistna District. This estate belonged to the Malraju family. Some time in the 18th century the then holder of the estate, namely, Deshmukh Desh Pandya Malraju Ramarayanim Garu, granted an agraharam of the village of Palidevarlapadu to one Prativadi Bhayankaram Vedantacharyulu Garu. The grant was an absolute one but liable to pay kattubadi of Rs. 89-7-10. The Kistna District Manual by Mr. Mackenzie, page 318, shows that in the year 1818 the then owner of Bellamkonda Estate gave away his estate to Government by his will. His descendants are now in receipt of an allowance from Government. The Government thereby stepped into the Zamindar's shoes and were in receipt of the kattubadi. At the time of the Inam Commission, 1860, the village was enfranchised. Exhibit V-a...
Tag this Judgment!Prativadi Bhayankaram Thiruvenkatacharyulu and ors. Vs. Secretary of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad147; 154Ind.Cas.990
Ramesam, Offg., C.J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated. There used to be an ancient estate known as the Estate of Bellamkonda in Sattempalli Taluk of the present Guntur District, but formerly Kistna District. This estate belonged to the Malraju family. Some time in the 18th century the then holder of the estate, namely, Deshmukh Desh Pandya Malraju Ramarayanim Garu granted an agraharam of the village of Palidevarlapadu to one Prativadi Bhayankaram Vedantacharyulu Garu. The grant was an absolute one but liable to pay kattubadi of Rs. 89-7-10. The Kistna District Manual by Mr. Mackenzie, p. 318, shows that in the year 1818 the then owner of Bellamkonda estate, gave away his estate to Government by his will. His descendants are now in receipt of an allowance from Government.2. The Government thereby stepped into the zemindar's shoes and were in receipt of the kattubadi. At the time of the inam commission in 1860 the village was enfranchised. Exhibit ...
Tag this Judgment!The Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards Vs. Alahari Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad140; 147Ind.Cas.1052; (1934)66MLJ233
Reilly, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Stone, J., dated the 16th November, 1932, which purports to have been made under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The Petitioners before the learned Judge were one A. Venkatanarasimham and one Pera Reddi. On examination of the records it appears that Pera Reddi never attempted to support the application by any affidavit, nor is there anything in the record to show how he was interested in the matter. So far as he was concerned, the application was clearly incompetent. Venkatanarasimham, whom I shall call the Petitioner, intended to stand for an election to the Taluk Board of Kavali and the District Board of Nellore. Under the rules made by the Government for the preparation of electoral rolls for Local Boards in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act an officer called the District Election Officer was in September and October, 1932, engaged in preparing the electoral roll for the Kavali Taluk. Under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarathammal and anr. Vs. Paramaswami Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad883; (1933)65MLJ781
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioners before me are the two widows of one Sundaram Asari, who died in 1922.2. By a will he left instructions that the widows should pay off the debts in E Schedule to the will by the outstandings due in D Schedule. In this matter the two sons of his two elder brothers were to assist them. Receipts were to be granted in the names of both the widows and the surplus invested in their names. He also contemplated that with this surplus lands should be purchased in the names of both the widows in which they should have a life-interest in equal shares.3. The house and ground shown in A Schedule was similarly to be enjoyed by them in equal shares as a life-interest.4. Widow No. 1 was to have B Schedule vessels and jewels, and widow No. 2 C Schedule vessels and jewels but again without power of alienation.5. Till the immovable properties proposed to be purchased by the balance of outstandings were purchased, the widows were to realise in equal shares the interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchapikesa Iyer (Died) and ors. Vs. K.N. HussaIn Muhammad Rowther an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ209
Reilly, J.1. One Kawana Nayana Noor Mohamed died in Penang on the 16th October, 1918. In February, 1919, probate of a will, executed by Noor Mohamed two days before his death, was granted by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements at Penang to the Defendants, who were named in the will as executors. That probate was properly and explicitly confined to 'the movable and immovable property of the deceased in anywise belonging and locally situate within the limits of the said Court'. The will provided for certain legacies and then went on 'All the rest and residue of my property which I may die possessed of I direct shall be divided amongst all those persons entitled thereto in accordance with the Mohammadan Law and in the shares according to such law. It is my desire that my estate shall follow the Mohammadan Law and be dealt with accordingly'. It appears that the bulk of Noor Mohamed's property was in Penang, but that a part of it consisted of immovable property in the Tanjore Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Panchapakesa Iyer and ors. Vs. K.M. HussaIn Muhammad Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad145; 148Ind.Cas.297
Reilly, J.1. One Kawana Nayana Noor Muhammad died in Penang on October 16, 1918. In February 1919, probate of a will executed by Noor Muhammad two days before his death, was granted by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements at Penang to the defendants, who are named in the will as executors. That probate was properly and explicitly confined tothe movable land immovable property of the deceased in any wise belonging and locally situate within the limits of the said Court.2. The will provided for certain legacies and then went onAll the rest and residue of my property which I may die possessed of I direct shall be divided amongst all those persons entitled thereto in accordance with the Muhammadan Law and in the shares according to such law. It is my desire that my estate shall follow the Muhammadan Law and may be dealt with accordingly.3. It appears that the bulk of Noor Muhammad's property was in Penang, but that a part of it consisted of immovable property in the Tanjore Distric...
Tag this Judgment!(Thakoor) Ramachander Lalji (Firm) and ors. Vs. M. Narasimhalu Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad888
Walsh, J.1. I see no reason why the Court should refuse restitution. The decree was admittedly a nullity, the suit having been instituted against a dead man. The Civil Procedure Rules are not applicable against dead persons as remarked in Debi Baksh Singh v. Habib Shah (1913)35 All 331. The Court having levied execution when there was no decree has inherent power to rectify its own mistake under Section 151, Civil P.C.: vide also remarks in Sudalaimuthu v. Sudalaimuthu : AIR1925Mad365 . I do not propose to go into the academic question whether the petitioners can get a decree which is a nullity set aside or not because the only real question is whether he can get restitution of money paid in execution of what was not a decree. I have no doubt that he can. The order will be that the money wrongfully paid to the respondents by the petitioners must be refunded with interest at 6 per cent per annum from date of collection, viz., 21st January 1928, till date of restitution. Petitioners will...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »