Chennai Court March 1934 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.
Alakki Venkataramayya Vs. Maharaja of Pittapuram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.712
1. The question arising in this Second Appeal is one relating to the application and working of ss. 145 and 146 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The 1st respondent in this Second Appeal is the Maharajah of Pithapuram. In the village of Pavara in his estate, three brothers of the Chelikani family, Buchi-rayanim Garu, Tammayya Garu. and Achuta Rayanim Garu, were holding certain lands under patta No. 6. The holding consisted of the following Survey Nos. with their corresponding extents:-Extent.Survey No. Ac. Cents.201/2 95205 10 64214/2 1 26242/ 40 48246 6 22. The rent of the whole holding was Rs. 392-11-0. The evidence shows that the three brothers divided the holding and were enjoying their respective portions separately. Of these fields, the 2nd, the 3rd above mentioned, namely, Survey Nos. 205 and 214/2 fell to the share of the eldest brother Buchirayanim Garu. The shares of the other two brothers were sold to various persons. In the year 1912 steps were taken to have a register of Rec...
Draviam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ramaiya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad390; 159Ind.Cas.857; (1935)68MLJ362
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The lower Courts have found that the plaintiff is successor in title to Subba Naick brothers who bought the property from Ayyarappa Naick, the former owner, in 1900 under Ex. A and that the defendants are in possession as successors in title of Manickam Chetty, the mortgagee with possession from Subba Naicks under Ex. B of 1900. It has also been found that the plea of adverse possession raised by defendants is not sustainable as Manickam Chetty was in possession as mortgagee till 1918 and after the sale deed by him of that year only 8 years had elapsed before the suit. In view of these findings the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property but was bound to redeem the mortgage.2. The learned Judge's decree for unconditional possession has therefore to be set aside. The respondent-plaintiff asks that he may be given what the District Munsif gave him, a decree for redemption. Although there may have been a formal objection against converting a suit in ej...
Arunachalathammal Vs. Esakki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad552; 152Ind.Cas.341
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Shanmukham Pillai by his first wife. The defendant is his second wife. Shanmukham Pillai seems to have died in or about the end of February or the beginning of March 1925, and on 17th March 1925, the plaintiff presented Ex. A for registration, claiming that it was the will executed by her deceased father. In the course of April and May several witnesses were examined before the Registering Officer and the case had been adjourned for further enquiry to 6th June. Before the Registering Officer the defendant was contending that the will was not genuine and in this she was admittedly supported by P.W. 3, who was the next male reversioner. At this juncture, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, marked Ex. B in the case, dated 5th June 1925. The defendant disputed the genuineness of Ex. B, but both the Courts below have found it to be genuine. To understand the provisions of Ex. B, it is necessary very briefly to r...
Sethuramalinga Ayyar and ors. Vs. Ananda Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad583a; 152Ind.Cas.413
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs 1, 2 and 5 complaining of the form in which the injunction has been framed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs brought the suit as lower riparian proprietors complaining that the defendants had put up a bund higher up thereby interfering with the flow of water in the stream. They asked for three reliefs, viz., declaring (1) that the defendants have no rights to use the water of this river for irrigation purposes at all; (2) directing the demolition of the dam already put up, and (3) prohibiting the defendants by means of a permanent injunction from ever putting up any dam across the river higher up the Komarapalayam anicut. The defendants in their written statement did not plead any special right based upon contract or custom but they contended in para. 4 thatthe use of the water of a river by putting an ordinary dam across it is one of the commonest methods adopted in this presidency. These defendants are entitled to put...
Yadla Gurunaidu and ors. Vs. Thalabathula Kanakayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad543; 152Ind.Cas.659
Pandalai, J.1. Three points have been urged in this appeal by the defendants against the decree granting an injunction against them from obstructing the plaintiff's use and repair, where repair is needed, of an underground channel stretching from the point C in the plan to the point R, the greatest part of which runs across and under a public pathway marked public Rastha in the plan.2. The first point is purely technical and may very shortly be disposed of. It is that when the appeal was pending in the lower appellate Court, the then respondent 3, Boddala Fapayya, alleged to be a nephew by a sister of respondent 1, died on 10th June 1932, but that the then appellant (plaintiff) respondent here took no steps to bring on record his legal representative and when the judgment was pronounced on 27th August 1932, the deceased respondent Papayya was not represented at all. Hence it is argued that the judgment of the lower appellate Court, sq far as that respondent was concerned is void and of...
Chinnakkal Vs. Chinnathambi Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad703; 152Ind.Cas.634
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit for specific performance of an agreement for re-sale (Ex. B) dated 4th May 1906. The property claimed in this suit was sold by the plaintiff for herself and as guardian of her minor son, by a sale-deed, Ex. 1 of the same date as Ex. B, to the present defendants. The registered sale-deed makes no reference to the agreement to re-convey but this has been provided for by a separate document, Ex. B. It would appear that the defendants have spent some moneys upon improving the property and one of the questions raised by them is that in the event of specific performance being decreed, they are entitled to the value of improvements which the first Court has fixed at Rs. 200.2. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree for specific performance. But the learned District Judge reversed that decision, holding that Ex. B is inoperative for want of registration, if viewed as part of the same transaction with Ex. 1-as in that case the transaction ...
Chokkalingam Chettiar and Two ors. Vs. Muthuswami Goundan and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad426; (1934)66MLJ699
Varadachariar, J.1. Mr. K.V. Ramachandra Aiyar has raised an interesting question in this case. Both sides admit that there is no decision dealing with this question and the arguments before me have proceeded mainly upon general considerations and a few rules of the Code.2. At the outset, I pointed out to Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar that, though this Court has sometimes entertained revision petitions against orders under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is only as an exception, because this is one of the class of cases where the aggrieved party has another remedy by way of suit. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar contended that, if the point raised in the Civil Revision Petition is fairly clear and this Court can decide the matter once for all, it was scarcely necessary to drive the parties to another suit and I have accordingly heard him at some length. It may be that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in his remark that rateable distribution is a matter of equity (cf. however Tha...
(Thalanki) Nagayya and anr. Vs. Thommandra Yerrikalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad691
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand. The facts are very simple and are clearly stated in the judgment under appeal. The main question in the case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. I agree for the reasons given by the lower Court that the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant is that of principal and agent and that the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the case is Article 89, but applying this article I cannot agree with the lower Court that the suit is not barred by Limitation. The learned Judge says that:The agency does not terminate merely with the selling of goods. It continues till the accounts are settled and money is remitted.2. This view is clearly wrong. In Venkatachalam v. Narayana 1916 Mad 281, it is held that:An agency is determined when the agent ceases to represent the principal though his liability in respect of aots done by him as agent may continue.3. According to this decision though, account has...
V. Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad705
Varadachariar, J.1. Plaintiff sues for a declaration that certain alienations made by her deceased husband are in operative beyond his lifetime. She contends that under the will of her father, in-law, (Ex. A, dated 28th August 1901) her husband was given only a life interest in the properties in question, that she was given a life interest by way of remainder, after her husband's death, with a further gift by way of remainder, after her death to certain other persons. In this appeal we are concerned only with one of the husband's transactions, viz., a mortgage dated 5th May 1921, in favour of defendant 1. Defendant 1, who is the appellant, contends that as the plaintiff was not in existence at the testator's death and as the gift under Ex. A in her favour is not of the full interest in remainder, that disposition is void under Section 100, Succession Act of 1865 (corresponding to Section 113, Succession Act of 1925) and that the plaintiff therefore cannot maintain the suit. The learned...
Thalanki Nagayya and anr. Vs. Thommandra Yerrikalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.266
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand. The facts are very simple and are clearly stated in the judgment under appeal. The main question in the case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. I agree for the reasons given by the lower Court that the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant is that of principal and agent and that the article of the limitation Act applicable to the case is Article 89 but applying this article I cannot agree with the lower Court that the suit is not barred by limitation. The learned Judge says thatThe agency does not terminate merely with the selling of goods. It continues till the accounts are settled and money is remitted.2. This view is clearly wrong. In Venkatachalam v. Narayanan 26 Ind Cas. 740 : 39 M 376 : 28 MLJ 140, it was held thatan agency is determined when the agent ceases to represent the principal though his liability in respect of acts done as agent may continue.3. According to this decision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »