Chennai Court September 1934 Judgments
Soora Ramakrishnamma Vs. Pasumarthi Venkata Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad252; 153Ind.Cas.817; (1935)68MLJ46
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In this appeal the question for consideration is whether a dasabandam inam is capable of alienation. According to the foot-note to Standing Order 56 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue 'a dasabandum inam is a grant of land or of Revenue as compensation for the construction of a tank, well or channel; the grant generally, though not invariably, carries with it the condition of keeping the work in repair. If the inam consists of land, it is called Khandam dasabandam; if it is an assignment of revenue, it is called shamilat dasabandam'. In the present case the dasabandam inam was sold in execution of a decree against the inamdar and the question was whether the sale was invalid and also whether the inamdar was estopped from questioning that Court sale which he had allowed to be held without protest. Both lower Courts held that the Court sale was invalid because land burdened with the performance of a service of a public nature is inalien...
Tag this Judgment!ilapavaluri Chalapathi Rao Vs. Dingali Ranganayakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Mad305
Stone, J.1. The facts in this case are somewhat complicated and it is necessary to state them in order to make plain what the points in dispute are. Defendant 1, the appellant, is the purchaser from one Murripudi Venkatachalam (hereinafter referred to as V) whose title found on two facts, viz. (1) he claims to be the reversioner to the rights of one Masipatla Tarabayi (whom I will call T) by right of the fact that he is the lady's father's younger brother's son; (2) the rights of T were on 4th March 1922, voluntarily surrendered by T to V by a deed of surrender (Ex. 4) duly registered. The reversionary right and the present right being thus combined V had to all appearances the whole right and this right he sold a few days after the surrender for Rs. 8,000 by a deed of sale (Ex. 13) to one Ilapavaluri Chalapathi Rao, defendant 1. The plaintiff claims as the daughter of T who died fifteen months after the deed of surrender and alleges that her mother's estate in that land was an absolut...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Mudaliar Vs. Krishtappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad66
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit as framed is one for partition of the joint family property of a coparcener in possession, and that ' being so, the provision of the Court-fees Act, that applies, is Section 7 (iv)(b), which reads thus:To enforce the right to share in any property [on the ground that it is joint family property : Rangaiah Chetty v. Subramania Chetty (1911) 8 IC 512 (FB).2. The valuation of the relief under that section rests with the plaintiff, who has valued it at Rs. 10, and I must hold that the proper court-fee has been paid in respect of this relief. There is no allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff became divided in status, and there is nothing to show in what circumstances he was allowed to put forward such a case at the trial. It is suggested, that probably at the framing of the issues, on the statements made by the party or his counsel, an issue was raised as to whether there was a division in status. With this I am not concerned and I do not propose t...
Tag this Judgment!Sannidhi Chinnasubbarayudu Vs. Godasi Veeraswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad196; 155Ind.Cas.575
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff who was a minor brought a suit on a pronote S.C.S. No. 284 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Amalapuram which was first dismissed for default. On this a petition was put in to set aside the dismissal order and restore the suit to file and the Court passed the following order:Defendant 1 affixed again : service sufficient against defendant 1 : absent and ex parte Defendant 2 also called, absent. Petition allowed.2. This order is the subject of Civil Revision Petition No. 1736 of 1933. It is argued that the Court should have stated the reasons why it held that the plaintiff had sufficient reasons for his absence) at the date of the hearing. I am not inclined to interfere in this Revision Petition because the plaintiff being represented by his guardian it would appear that whether the latter had sufficient reasons for non-appearance or not the suit had to be restored to file: vide Venkataratnam v. nagappa 1934 Mad 616 following Kesho Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Savarala Venkatasubbiah Vs. Kumara Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad184; 155Ind.Cas.381
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This revision petition is against an arbitrator's award to which objection was made in the lower Court but which was confirmed the plaintiff in O.S. No. 35 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madanapalle brought a suit against the defendant on three items : (1) for 12 measures of paddy delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant's brother in law, the defendant having promised to pay for the same ; (2) for a debt of Rs. 86-11-0 due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of tamarind and sugar candy trade with regard to which the defendant executed a letter dated 25th August 1927; and (3) for three measures of Koru paddy cultivated in the manyam land of the plaintiff. The matter was referred to arbitrators who awarded the full sum to the plaintiff. Objections to the award wore put in but were disallowed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that there is no power of revision in this Court in cases where the lower Court has confirmed the d...
Tag this Judgment!Golla Lakshmiah Naidu Vs. Golla Krishnaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.1016
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are Golla Mirasiholders of the Sri Kothandaramaswami Temple and that by a registered agreement, dated August 22, 19G6, between them and the defendant they were entitled to take yearly turns in holding office. They also sued to recover possession of the key of the temple and to fill this office for the year beginning with July 1, 1931.2. The suit was filed in November 1931 and did not come up for hearing till March 1933, apparently for no fault of the plaintiffs. By that time the year for which they were entitled to possession had elapsed. The defendant, urged that they must be, therefore, non-suited as a mere prayer for declaration without possession could not be granted. The plaintiffs asked to amend their plaint by claiming the relief they were entitled to, viz., to get possession during alternate years. This amendment was allowed by the Court and against the order allowing it the present revision petition is filed....
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Mudaliar Vs. Kristappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.666
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit as framed is one for partition of the joint family property by a co-parcener in possession and that being so, the provision of the Court Fees Act that applies, is Section 7(iv)(6), which reads thus:to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property. Boganadam Rangiah Chetty v. Boganadam Suiramania Chetty 8 Ind. Cas. 512 : 21 M.L.J. : (1910) M.W.N. 755 : 9 M.L.T. 3 (F.B.).2. The valuation of the relief under that section rests with the plaintiff, who has valued it at Rs. 10, and I must hold that the proper court-fee has been paid in respect of this relief. There is no allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff became divided in status, and there is nothing to show in what circumstances he was allowed to put forward such a case at the trial. It is suggested, that probably at the framing of the issues on the statements made by the party or his Counsel, an issue was raised as to whether there was a division in statu...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.N.R.M. Lakshmanan Chettier Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad115; (1935)68MLJ23
1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act as amended a court-fee is payable on the equitable set-off claimed by the defendant in the suit. The principal Subordinate Judge of Devakottai held that a court-fee was payable tentatively. The matter thus comes before us. We are quite unable to see why in reason a written statement or a defence pleading a legal set-off should have to bear a court-fee and one pleading an equitable set-off not be liable to do so also. In the former case the set-off pleaded may be of a very small amount and in the latter case of a very large amount, It is conceded by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that beyond what he suggests as a technicality no reason can possibly be advanced for this distinction between the two classes of set-off. An equitable set-off is a legally recognised one and we fail to see why any distinction should be drawn between that and a legal set-off. The matter is somewhat bare o...
Tag this Judgment!Sreela Sri Thirugnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhigal Vs. Kannuchami Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad56(1); 152Ind.Cas.1052; (1935)68MLJ55
King, J.1. These petitions are to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Madura passed under Section 5 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (XIV of 1920) in respect of the Endowments of the Thirugnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Mutt. It is urged that for two reasons the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass this order.2. Because since the passing of Madras Act II of 1927 (Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act) the charitable and Religious Trusts Act can no longer have any applicability to any religious endowments in this Presidency.3. Because in any case Act XIV of 1920 cannot be applied as appellant the head of the Mutt, is not in any sense a trustee but has absolute and unfettered control over the property and income of the Mutt.4. In regard to the first reason it will be noted that appellant is unable to plead that Madras Act II of 1927 has repealed any of the provisions of Act XIV of 1920. The ruling therefore which has been cited before us Lachmi v. Aba I.L.R.(...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naidu and ors. Vs. the Uppilipalayam Vamana Vilasa Nidhi, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad117; 153Ind.Cas.453; (1935)68MLJ155
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The suit was brought on two mortgages alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendants who is dead. Written statement was put in and issues were framed on 10th November, 1933. The first petitioner attained majority on 18th February, 1934 and on 15th March, 1934 he put in I.A. No. 277 of 1934 in the suit for permission to file an additional written statement. The Court refused his application on two grounds (1) that it contained irrelevant and prolix matter and (2) that it contained scandalous matter. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that a minor defendant is entitled on attaining majority to put in an additional written statement. He quotes Trevelyan on Minors, page 270 and also Simpson's Law of Infants, p. 311. The first does not quote any authority for the statement. The second quotes Bennet v. Lee (1742) 2 Atk. 529 : 26 E.R. 717. The point does not seem to have been r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »