Chennai Court February 1934 Judgments
K.C.A. Arunachala Nadar and ors. Vs. Srivilliputtur Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad480
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiffs are wholesale rice merchants of Sattur, who agreed during the period of scarcity after the war of 1914-1918 to supply rice bags to Srivilliputtur Municipality, which a committee duly appointed by the Municipality was to retail to private persons. After a consignment of bags had been made in February 1920, the price fell and the Municipality disposed of them at a loss and refused to pay the plaintiffs more than what it got by the sale. The plaintiffs claim Rs. 3,000 as the value of the bags as upon the date of delivery. The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit except for a reduction made on account of gunny bags. This Court dismissed the suit on second appeal. Hence this Letters Patent appeal.2. The plaintiffs cannot sue upon contract because they have no written contract signed by two councillors as provided by Section 45 of the then Act, Act 4 of 1884. They claim however under Section 65, Contract Act, that the agreement having been d...
Tag this Judgment!(Srimathu) Muthu Vijiaraghunatha Duraisingam Vs. Venkatachalam Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad551
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the suit lands form part of the village of Velampettai of which defendant 1 is the landholder; and not of Thamarakulam of which defendants 2 to 5 are landholders. The District Munsif and Subordinate Judge decreed their suit and this Court on second appeal dismissed it finding that the question of ownership had already been decided in a rent suit by the Revenue Court (S.S. No. 91/21 R.D.O. Devakottah) between plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 and this constituted res judicata. Hence the Letters Patent appeal.2. Under Section 189(3), Madras Estates Land Act, the decision of a revenue Court on a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction shall be binding in any civil suit. That is to say that the Legislature has provided a cheap and speedy final settlement of such rent disputes as are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue Court, but of course never intended that larger questions of title and so forth should be summarily settled i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Sivaganga Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.246
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the suit lands form part of the village of Velampattai of which 1st defendant is the land-holder: and not of Thamarakolam of which defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are land-holders.2. The District Munsif and Subordinate Judge decreed their suit and this Court on second appeal dismissed it, finding that the question of ownership had already been decided in a rent suit by the Revenue Court (Sections 91/21 R.D.O. Devakottah) between plaintiffs and defendants NOS. 2-5 and this constituted res judicata.3. Hence the Lelters Patent Appeal.4. Under Section 189(3), Madras Estates Land Act the decision of a Revenue Court on a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction shall be binding in any civil suit. That is to say that the legislature has provided a cheap and speedy final settlement of such rent disputes as are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, but of course never intended that larger questions of title and SO forth should be summ...
Tag this Judgment!Neti Venkata Somayajulu Garu Vs. Adusumilli Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad397; (1934)66MLJ622
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question and has been fully argued by the counsel on both sides. The facts may be briefly stated. In the suit the plaintiff claimed an easement of necessity in respect of certain lands. At the defendant's request, the District Munsif made a local inspection of the site. Then, after the plaintiff was examined-in-chief and some documents were filed, the parties requested the Court to give a decision on the evidence already on the record and intimated that they proposed to adduce no further evidence. A joint statement to that effect was filed and the decision in the case really turns upon the proper construction of that document. To resume the story, the Munsif gave his decision partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with that judgment, appealed to the Subordinate Judge. He held that by reason of the joint statement to which I have referred, the plaintiff was debarred from filing the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Thanu Pillai and anr. Vs. Nellathayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad562
Ramesam, J.1. I think the proper test in a case of this kind is laid down by Walsh, J., in Sundarathammal v. Paramaswami Asari 1933 Mad. 883 .It is not, to my mind, so much a question whether they have this power in the abstract but whether in the concrete circumstances of this base they could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising it.2. I agree with these remarks. It is true that the petitioners have considerable properties. They are all heavily mortgaged - some with possession. Some of the mortgages are the subject of suits. In the circumstances, evidence is necessary to enable one to judge whether any money can be raised on the properties. The plaintiffs should be allowed to adduce the evidence and the defendants may by cross-examination show, if they can, that plaintiffs can and ought to raise money. If it is reasonable to hold that plaintiffs cannot raise the amount necessary for the suit, they will be allowed to sue as paupers, and conversely.3. I set aside the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Thanu Pillai and anr. Vs. Nallathayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.260
Ramesam, J.1. I think the proper test in a case of this kind is laid down by Walsh, J., in Sundarathammal v. Paramaswami Asari : AIR1933Mad883 :It is not, to my mind, so much, a question whether they have this power in the abstract but whether in the concrete circumstances of this case they could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising it.I agree with these remarks. It is true that the petitioners have considerable properties. They are all heavily mortgaged some with possession. Some of the mortgages are the subject of suits. In the circumstances, evidence is necessary to enable one to judge whether any money can be raised on the properties. The plaintiffs should be allowed to adduce the evidence and the defendants may by cross-examination show, if they can, that plaintiffs can and ought to raise money. If it is reasonable to hold that plaintiffs cannot raise the amount necessary for the suit, they will be allowed to sue as paupers and, conversely.2. I set aside the order...
Tag this Judgment!Solaimalai Kone Vs. Sokkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad567
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as the adopted son of one Ayyanna Kone for the recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned properties. Ayyanna Kone died on 7th January 1920 without leaving any male issue. The lands owned by him at the time of his death were about 34 acres in extent, Solai Achi, who was his first wife, pre-deceased him leaving a daughter Chcekkammal who is defendant 1 in this suit. The second wife Seruvakkal had a daughter who died a few months after the death of Ayyanna Kone. While Seruvakkal was alive, Ayyanna Kona married a third wife Velammal who is defendant 2 in this suit and who has no issue. After the death of Ayyanna Kone, his co-widows, viz., Seruvakkal and defendant 2, fell out with the result that a suit for partition was filed by defendant 2 against Seruvakkal (O.S. No. 415 of 1920 in the District Munsif's Court, Melur). During the pendency of that suit a release deed was executed by defendant 2 in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Solaimali Kone Vs. Sokkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.1049
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as the adopted son of one Ayyanna Kone for the recovery of possession of the plaint-mentioned properties. Ayyanna Kone died on January 7, 1920, without leaving any male issue. The lands owned by him at the time of his death were about 34 acres in extent. Solai Achi, who was his first wife, predeceased him leaving a daughter Chokkammal who is the 1st defendant in this suit. The second wife Seruvakkal had a daughter who died a few months after the death of Ayyanna Kone. While Seruvakkal was alive, Ayyanna Kone married a third wife Vellammal who is the 2nd defendant in this suit and who has no issue. After the death of Ayyanna Kone, his co-widows, viz., Seruvakkal and the 2nd defendant, fell out with the result that a suit for partition was filed by the 2nd defendant against Seruvakkal (O.S. No. 415 of 1920 in the District Munsifs Court, Melur). During the pendency of that suit a release deed was executed by the 2nd defendant in f...
Tag this Judgment!(Yellamaraju) Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Lakkaraju Ananda Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad432; 155Ind.Cas.79
Jackson, J.1. One Lakshmayya died leaving a widow (defendant 2) and a daughter Subbamma, mother of two sons, defendant 3 and plaintiff, who are the nearest reversioners to Lakshmayya's estate. On 20th November 1918, with the assent of defendant 3, the widow, defendant 2, sold a parcel of the estate for Rs. 1,500 for debts contracted for family expenses and the thread and marriage ceremonies of the plaintiff. Four years later the plaintiff with more sense of humour than of decency sued to invalidate this sale on the ground that the estate had been dissipated for improper purposes. The District Munsif decreed, the Subordinate Judge dismissed, and this Court decreed the suit; and it now comes up for final decision with the vendee as appellant. The facts as stated above are not in dispute. The elder brother's participation in the transaction has precluded any question of fraud, and there is the plain first issue:Whether the suit alienation in favour of defendant 1 was made for legal necess...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gnanadesikam Pillai and ors. Vs. Antony Benathu Boopalarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad458; 155Ind.Cas.838
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a Bum of Rs. 8,981-14-8 alleged to be due under a registered lease-deed dated 19th January 1911 and executed by defendant 1, under which there was an agreement to pay an annual rent of Rs. 368-8-0. Properties comprised in the lease-deed were mortgaged by defendant 1 with possession to the plaintiff under a mortgage-deed dated 18th January 1911 for Rs. 2,500. The mortgage-deed and the lease-deed have been filed as Exs. A and E respectively. The suit is for the recovery of the arrears of rent due under the aforesaid lease-deed and the charge created under Ex. E is also sought to be enforced. According to the contention of defendant 1, the usufructuary mortgage was for a term of two years and the lease granted by the mortgagee was also for the same period of two years, and that at the end of that term, he surrendered possession to the plaintiff, as he did not pay either the arrears of rent or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »