Chennai Court October 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.
(Tammana) Narayana Moorthy and ors. Vs. Kunala Purna Chendra Rao and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad266
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question under the Court-fees Act. If any question of general principle was involved, I should have preferred to give notice to the Government Pleader and have his assistance But as I feel little doubt in the matter and as the question turns more upon the construction of the plaint in the case than on any point of general principle, I have contented myself with having the assistance of the learned Counsel who have appeared for both the parties before me. The plaint, as first filed, was a claim for money on the footing that the amount was due to the plaintiffs on a settlement of accounts. It however referred to the fact that on 18th August 1931 there was an agreement between the parties according to which the defendants agreed to sell certain lands to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the claim due on the settlement of accounts. It went on to find fault with the way in which the defendants had fulfilled their obligations under thi...
Decca Ramanna Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad299
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant brought a suit against the Secretary of State claiming a declaration of his title to certain land, a declaration that the Government have no right in that land and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's rights therein. There was also a matter of penal assessment with which we are not now concerned. The land in question consists of what is alleged to be an encroachment on the bed of a madugu or lake which lies partly within the boundaries of three villages each of which is situated in a different estate. In this appeal we are concerned, however, only with the portion of the madugu which lies in one village and one estate. The lower Courts have found that the plaintiff encroached on this land in Fasli 1333 and has no title therein that the land forms part of the bed of the madugu and is set apart for communal purposes. The lower appellate Court held that though the water of this madugu is only occasionally used...
Docca Ramanna Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.50
1. The appellant brought a suit against the Secretary of State claiming a declaration of his title to certain land, a declaration that the Government have no right in that land and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's rights therein. There was also a matter of penal assessment with which we are not now concerned. The land in question consists of what is alleged to be an encroachment on the bed of a madugu or lake which lies partly within the boundaries of their villages each of which is situated in a different estate. In this appeal, we are concerned, however, only with the portion of the madugu which lies in one village and one estate. The lower Courts have found that the plaintiff encroached on this land in Fasli 1333, and has no title therein that the land forms part of the bed of the madugu and is set apart for communal purposes. The lower Appellate Court held that though the water of this madugu is only occasionally used for drinki...
V.G. Venugopal Naidu Vs. Lakshimi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.485
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Butler, J. The facts are that the appellant here was the plaintiff in a suit in the Vellore District Munsif's Court. He there sued his wife, the 1st respondent here, for restitution of conjugal rights and he also claimed an injunction against the 2nd defendant, her father, restraining him from instigating the 1st defendant to stay away from her husband and from preventing her returning to him. In the District Munsif's Court five issues were framed one of which was whether that Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned District Munsif held that he had jurisdiction to try it. The defendant's Vakil had no instructions to go on with the case so far as the other issues which dealt with the merits were concerned, and the learned District Munsif took ex parte evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and gave him a decree as prayed for. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Vellore and whilst agreeing with the ...
(Reniguntla) Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Thallam Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad290
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a point of limitation on which, so far as I am aware, there is no direct authority. The question is whether in computing the period of limitation for a claim against a person who has been adjudged insolvent but whose adjudication has been annulled, the period to be excluded with reference to Section 78, Provincial Insolvency Act is only the period between the date of the adjudication and the date of the annulment, or whether the plaintiff is entitled to rely on Section 28(7), Provincial Insolvency Act, and to exclude the whole of the period between the presentation of the petition and the annulment of the adjudication on the legal fiction that the adjudication relates back to the date of the presentation of the petition. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff's claim is on a promissory note. There is an endorsement of payment dated 1st May 1920 which saves limitation. On 10th November 1920 the defendant filed an insolvency petition and he was adj...
Secy. of State Vs. A.V. Narayanaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad692
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State against whom was passed a decree declaring the right of the plaintiff to irrigate his wet lands from the water of a poromboke channel, known as Kandian Madai and for a refund of penal water rate levied by Government. The channel in question takes off from the south bank of the Manniar river which flows roughly from west to east. Higher up the river there is a big channel known as the Debir channel which also takes off from the south bank and flows eastwards. The Kandian Madai channel runs north to south leading from the river to this Debir channel, but in the middle of its course there is a branch which flows eastwards and irrigates a block of lands belonging to the plaintiff. It is the Government's case that this irrigation by a direct take-off from the Kandian Madai channel is unauthorised and liable to penalty and that the authorised source for this block of the plaintiff's lands situated to the north of Debir channel is the De...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. A.V. Narayanaswami Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.97
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State against whom was passed a decree declaring the right of the plaintiff to irrigate his wet lands from the water of a poromboke channel, known as Kanidan Madai and for a refund of penal water rate levied by Government. The channel in question takes off from the south bank of the Manniar river which flows roughly from west to east. Higher up the river there is a big channel known as the Dabir channel which also takes off from the south bank and flows eastwards. The Kandian Madai channel runs north to South leading from the river to this Dabir channel, but in the middle of its course there is a branch which flows eastwards and irrigates a block of lands belonging to the plaintiff. It is the Government's case that this irrigation by a direct take-off from the Kandian Madai channel is unauthorised and liable to penalty and that the authorised source for this block of the plaintiff's lands situated to the north of the Dabir channel is th...
Rangaswami Battar Vs. Alasinga Battar Alias Veeraraghava Battar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad103; 160Ind.Cas.415; (1935)69MLJ888
Burn, J.1. The first plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. There were two plaintiffs, both holders of archaka miras in the temple of Ranganathasami at Srirangam. The second plaintiff mortgaged for Rs. 2,000 his rights as archaka to the first plaintiff by a deed dated 21st January, 1926. The first plaintiff on the strength of this documeut tried to collect from the trustees of the temple the emoluments of the office. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that this mortgage was void. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld this decision and the first plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. We are of opinion that this appeal must fail. This is a case in which a holder of a religious office has attempted to transfer his right to the office for consideration to another person who, though qualified to hold the office, is not in the line of succession from the transferor. Such a transfer according to the uniform current of decisions of this Court is void. The decisions of this Co...
Chittukuri Gopala Rao Vs. Parachuri Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad246; (1936)70MLJ241
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the District Munsif of Tenali whereby when granting leave to defend a suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code, he imposed upon the petitioner a condition that he should give security for the suit claim. In the face of Clause (2) of Order 37, Rule 3, it cannot be seriously disputed that in suits under Order 37, the Court has jurisdiction to impose conditions when granting leave to defend. But Mr. Satyanarayana Rao on behalf of the petitioner has strongly insisted that in view of several decisions of this Court, a Court ought not to impose a condition when granting leave to defend except under exceptional circumstances. In particular, he referred to a decision of Madavan Nair, J., in Olayatt Kunhu v. Ussan Kasim Sait : AIR1929Mad841 and a decision of Ramesam, J., in Venkata Kishtnayya v. Ramaswami : AIR1935Mad302 where the learned Judges have interfered even in revision with orders imposing a condition of security. He als...
Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar and ors. Vs. Vedavyasa Venkatasudarsana Bha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ424
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. One Vedavyasa Bhattar was a Dharmakartha of the Srirangam temple and the right of his family to a place in the Dharmakarthaship is still reserved in the scheme framed by the High Court in Sitharama Chetty v. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar I.L.R.(1915) 39 Mad. 700 : 30 M.L.J. 39. He had also certain mirasi offices in the temple with emoluments and perquisites attached to them. In 1870 the office of the Dharmakartha and certain mirasi offices were held by three descendants of the said Vedavyasa Bhattar, vis., (1) Sri Venkata Bhattar (2) Venkatasudarsana Bhattar and (3) Thatha Bhattar who then constituted an undivided Hindu family. Owing to dissensions in the family in 1870 they became divided in status and later effected a partition of their properties including the mirasi offices in a certain manner. Ex. Ill dated 1st January, 1876, which evidences the division 'provides, so far as the Dharmakarthaship is concerned, enjoyment by turns by the three members in rotation ea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »