Chennai Court January 1935 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.
C. Duraivelu Mudaliar, Trustee and Dharmakartha of Sri Apparswami Temp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad600; 157Ind.Cas.1016; (1935)69MLJ182
Cornish, J.1. This appeal raises a question upon the construction of Section 186 of the Madras City Municipal Act.2. The appellant is the trustee of the Apparswami temple and in that capacity is the owner of a number of houses in the Mylapore division of the Municipality. In December, 1933, he was served with a notice (Ex. A) from the Corporation of Madras calling upon him to ' convert' an existing latrine in a. building belonging to him into a flush-out latrine. The notice purported to be issued under Section 186 of the Act, though for some unknown reason the notice used the word 'convert' instead of 'alter' which is the word used in the section. It would have been better if the notice had followed the language of the section. But nothing turns on this in the present case. The appellant protested at being required to make the alteration and a correspondence followed between him and the Corporation, from which it appears that the Corporation required the alteration to be made because t...
Natarajan and ors. Vs. Palaniandi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad559
Pandrang Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Salem, dated 6th February 1933, by which he remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal after reversing the trial Court's finding on the question of limitation. The suit was instituted for the recovery of possession of about 28 cents of land on the strength of a certain provision in the partition deed of 1914 which was said to have been confirmed by an oral arrangement of 1922. The provision in question was to the effect that if there was any inequality discovered afterwards in the shares allotted by the partition deed, which, according to the partition deed, were to be enjoyed separately thereafter, the person who had excess land in his possession was to make good the deficit in the other share by giving a sufficient portion of land from a certain field adjoining the latter's share therein. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the claim was one which fell under Article...
Muthappa Chetty Vs. Raman Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad574; 158Ind.Cas.252
Walsh, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal and he is the petitioner in the revision petition which has been filed in the case. The facts are these: the plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendant at Meiktila in Burma in 1923. The suit was brought in the Court of the District Munsif of Sivaganga alleging that the defendant was a permanent resident at a village called Kilaseval-patti in the Eamnad District. The learned District Munsif held that the defendant had no residence there and that therefore 'he had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint. An appeal was presented to the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga who reversed the decision of the District Munsif and remanded the suit for disposal on the other issues. At the trial the defendant was absent and the suit was decreed ex parte in favouJj of the plaintiff. An application under Order 9, Rull 13, to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed and this was confirmed on appeal. Against this C.R....
(Anakkaran Puthiya Valappil Valiapurayil) Kunha Mina Umma and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad715
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry dated 10th March 1932 remanding on appeal a suit for fresh disposal by the District Munsif of Taliparamba. The suit had been originally disposed of by the trial Court in August 1925 on a preliminary point, and that decision was appealed from up to the High Court, and it was after the decision of the High Court in 1928 that the suit was disposed of on the merits on 4th January 1929 by the District Munsif in a very lengthy and elaborate judgment dealing with all the points or issues raised in the suit. The judgment of the District Munsif did not certainly proceed on a preliminary point and nevertheless, the Subordinate Judge in appeal has remanded the suit for fresh disposal without giving sufficient reasons for taking this course. It is no doubt open to an appellate Court to remand a suit for fresh disposal under what are called the inherent powers possessed by it, but the inherent powers should ...
R. Venkatasubba Sastri Vs. Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad977; 161Ind.Cas.800
Varadachariar, J.1. Appellant is one of two plaintiffs, who sued for possession in respect of Schedule A immovables and for a declaration of their right in respect of Schedule B outstandings, alleging that they were entitled thereto as reversioners on the death of their cousin Muthulakshmi Ammal on June 17, 1928. The two items of immovable properties had been purchased by Muthulakshmi Ammal, under Exs. 13 and 14, in December 1916. Of the outstandings, item No. 1, Schedule B was due under a pro-note from defendant No. 2 items Nos. 2 and 3 were due from one Sub bier. Defendant No. 1 set up a will by Muthulakshmi Ammal (Ex. 12) and claimed for himself all the suit properties except item No. 1, schedule B in respect of which he alleged a trust. Defendant No. 2 set up certain rights in respect of item No. 1, Schedule B under an arrangement (Ex. 11) said to have been made by Muthulakshmi Ammal even before the date of the will. In effect they contended that Muthulakshmi Ammal was absolute own...
M. Ar. Rm. M. Annamalai Chettiar and ors. Vs. Al. A.C.T. Solayappa Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ274
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises the question as to the nature of the suit trusts and on that depends whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Are the trusts governed by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code or by Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927), that is the question as regards the nature of the trusts that has to be decided.2. The plaint alleges that by an agreement come to about the year 1903 among the members of certain Nattukottai Chetty families (now represented by the plaintiffs and the defendants) a sum of Rs. 54,000 was set apart for certain purposes. In paragraph 4 of the plaint those purposes are thus described:It was agreed by and among the members of the first four families, about the year 1903, that a sum of Rs. 54,000 should be set apart by them for the Thirupani (i.e.) the renovation of the Sri Vedanayagi Amman Temple, at Vedaranyam, that a large sum out of the same should be set apart for the maintenance ...
Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Alagia Manavalam Alias Kalingaraya Ramakrishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad416; (1935)68MLJ464
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Lakshmana Rao, J. holding that the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to decide whether or not Act II of 1929 is applicable to the case and deciding that there was no ground for the issue of a writ of certiorari. He, therefore, rejected the petition. He had before him, as his order indicates, a petition for the issue of a writ of certinrari : directed to the Court of the Sub-Collector of Ramnad and the Court of the District Collector also of Ramnad. The Sub-Collector had before him a suit under Act III of 1895. The first plaintiff in that suit claimed that he was entitled to be appointed to a certain village office, the predecessor in that office having resigned in 1932. Acting under Sections 9 and 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service Act (II of 1894) the proprietor of the village had appointed to the office the defendant in the suit in the Revenue Court in preference to the first ...
Puzhakkattoorakayil Karuvayoor Raman Moosad's son Karnavan and Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad552; 157Ind.Cas.156; (1935)68MLJ678
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The respondent, a Nambudri Brahmin, applied to the lower Court for leave to file the suit in question in forma pauperis, the object of the suit being the removal of the karnavan of his illom. The leave having been granted, the lower Court's order is attacked by the first defendant, the karnavan. The plaintiff (the respondent) is not represented in this Court, but at my request Mr. B. Sitarama Rao has argued the case as amicus curiae and I am indebted to him for his lucid and careful argument.2. The karnavan objects that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that therefore under Order 33, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code the lower Court ought not to have permitted the plaintiff to sue as a pauper. His learned Counsel's contention is that the right to demand partition, which a Nambudri Brahmin possesses in virtue of the recent Madras Nambudri Act (Act No. XXI of 1933), is inconsistent with the continued existence of a right to bring a suit for the re...
(Sree Rajah) Venkata Rengiah Appa Rao Bahadur and ors. Vs. Secy. of St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad389
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Sundaram Chetty, J., in Second Appeal. The suit was one against the Secretary of State for India in Council as defendant 1 and some other defendants in possession of the suit lands in order to establish the plaintiff's right to resume, the suit inams and for a declaration that defendant 1 had no right to enfranchise these inams and also for the recovery of possession of the lands ejecting the defendants therefrom. There were two plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 had sold the suit village to plaintiff 2 and under the contract of sale plaintiff 2 had been put in possession of the village also.2. The Courts below rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C., on the ground that notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., was not given by plaintiff 2 to defendant 1 in the manner required by that section. The notice in question which is Ex. 1 and which is dated 22nd July 1921 is a notice sent by plaintiff 1 only to the Government in...
Bhagavathi Vannan Vs. Veera Vannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad591
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dated 11th July 1931, setting aside in appeal the decrees of the District Munsif of Kulitalai dated 23rd September 1930, in O.S. No. 290 of 1928 and 498 of 1929 and directing the trial Court to restore the suits to its file and dispose of them after giving, them opportunity to let in evidence. The plaintiff who is the same in both-the suits challenged the defendant to take oath in a certain temple in a certain manner with regard to two principal allegations made in the plaint, and this challenge was accepted by the defendant. When a commission was issued for the taking of the oath and everything was ready, a difficulty arose by reason of the claim made by a temple servant of a certain fee for the purpose of meeting Samprokshana' expenses as preliminary to the taking of the oath. The plaintiff would not pay the fee, and apparently the defendant did not offer to pay, and both the parti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »