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.
Rangachariar and ors. Vs. Rangaswami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ223
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question of law arising in the case is the plea of Res judicata raised on the strength of the compromise decree in O.S. No. 534 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tiruvattipuram. That was a representative suit and the decree therein establishes the title of the Nanja Ayactit dams to the Vighal in the suit tank. The District Munsiff dismissed the present suit on a finding under Issues 1 and 4 against the title. On behalf of the Petitioners it has been contended that as the decree in O.S. No. 534 of 1930 has become final, it constitutes the question of title, Res judicata, even for the purpose of this Civil Revision Petition, though that decree was given only after the decision of this suit in the trial Court. The balance of authority is in favour of upholding the plea of Res judicata See Mariam Nissa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi I.L.R.(1906) 33 Cal. 1101 . Though the Full Bench decision in Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sasirial I.L.R.(1905) 29 M...
Maddali Visweswara Rao, Being Minor by Mother and Guardian Venkatamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.712; (1936)70MLJ360
Stone, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore in O.S. No. 7 of 1926, an action which was in the nature of a partition action, asking inter alia for a declaration that a certain mortgage is void, that the decree granted in an action brought by the mortgagee upon the mortgage should be set aside, that the consequential auction held following upon that decree should be set aside, and that certain alienations made before that suit was brought in order to pay the moneys due under that mortgage should also be set aside. The decree was granted in the suit as before mentioned brought by the mortgagee, in which suit there was a minor, which minor was represented by a Court guardian, which Court guardian was a clerk of the Court having been appointed in consequence of the failure of the minor's uncle adequately to represent the minor's interests. The reason why it is now said the decree should be set aside is that that Court guardian was negligent and the groun...
Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Kuriminelli Narayanaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad492; (1936)70MLJ494
1. The question involved in this litigation is between landlord and tenant in an estate governed by the Estates Land Act. Can a landlord except by proceedings under Chapter III of the Act raise the rent of land which the tenant has converted from dry into wet? The tenant is the respondent. In 1925 he bought some land from one Krishna Rao Pantulu who had been let into possession in 1914 of a large extent of fifty acres and who, by constructing a tank on four acres, and doing certain other work had rendered, sixteen acres fit for wet cultivation, and had agreed to pay to the Zamindar rent for this sixteen acres at the rate of Rs. 10 per acre, which is the rent applicable to wet land. Respondent knew of this when he bought the land from Krishna Rao, but refused to pay rent at this rate and filed a suit against the Zamindar under Section 55 of the Act to compel the latter to grant him a patta, reserving a rent of Re. 0-8-0 per acre which is the rate for dry land. The suit was decreed in th...
S.M. Muthuranga Chetti Vs. Minor Lakshmipathi Naidu by Next Friend Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad488; (1936)70MLJ627
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The seventh defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which -this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for a partition of the suit properties after setting aside some alienations. The plaintiffs' right to the partition of the B Schedule properties is not in question in this second appeal. The alienation which is in question relates to properties covered by Ex. E, a mortgage executed by the plaintiffs' grandfather in favour of the seventh defendant. The relationship between the parties is shown in the genealogical tree printed page 8 of the pleadings.Ethirajalu Naidu| ____________________________________________________________________| | | |Rajamannar Thambu Duraiswami Sarangapani Naidu(first Naidu Naidu (fourth defendant)defendant) (second (third defendant) defendant)| | |____________________________________________________________________| | | |Lakshmipathi Ramakrishna Radakrishna Audikesavalu(first (second (third plaintiff) (fourth plaintiff),p...
K. Chengalroya Reddi Vs. Udai Kavour by Her Agent Mohanmull Choreda (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad752; (1936)71MLJ1a
ORDER1. The way in which the suit has been dealt with in the Court below has led to a dearth of materials necessary to work out the declarations above made as to the rights of the parties. Having regard however to the long pendency of this litigation, we are very reluctant to allow it to be further prolonged by a remand. We accordingly directed the appeal to be posted for being spoken to and it accordingly came on for further hearing today. In the circumstances, we think that the best we could do is to pass a decree in the following terms:that the plaintiff do recover from the first defendant personally the sum of Rs. 20,797-2-0 with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from 17th September, 1926, to date of payment, that the plaintiff dm recover from the second defendant personally the sum of Rs. 48,526-2-0 with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from 17th September, 1926, to date-of payment;that out of the above sum, the plaintiff be entitled to recover by sale of the plai...
Vaddaparti Soorayya Vs. Vodoori Sooranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad252
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff and his brothers Mangayya and Kondayya were members of an undivided Hindu family and owned considerable properties, among others certain karnam mirasi inams. Mangayya had two sons, Gavvaraju who died in 1904 and another Raju who died in 1920. At a partition between the three brothers a major portion of the property was divided but the said inams and some jeroyati lands were kept undivided. It appears that the office of the karnam was held by Mangayya as the eldest member of the family. But even during his lifetime the said office appears to have been held by his elder son Gavvaraju till 1904 and thereafter by his younger son Raju and the Government enfranchised the service inams in favour of the said Raju. One Venkataramanamurthi, the son of Kondayya, filed a suit, O.S. No. 39 of 1916, on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Cocanada for a partition of the said karnam service inam lands and other property which were not divided as aforesa...
Muhammad Gosukani and ors. Vs. (Muhammad) Sekka Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad301
1. The main question now for decision is whether the rent sales of the suit lands, whether for arrears of fasli 1320 or fasli 1321, were valid or void. If they were valid, or void until set aside, Article 12, Lim. Act, will apply, and the plaintiff's claim is barred. If they were void, the Article applicable will be Article 142, and, as I have already held, the suit will be within time. The learned District Judge has found that the sales were for arrears actually due, and that notice of them was given to the tenant; and Mr. Varadachariar does not wish to dispute these findings. He takes certain other points, which I will now consider. The first point applies to all the eight items, and depends upon the fact that the lessee from the proprietor who exercised the power of sale conferred by the Madras Estates Land Act, was an ijaradar or farmer of rent. It appears that there were no bidders for these holdings, and that they were bought in by the ijaradar, as land holder, and subsequently r...
(Maddali) Visweswara Rao Vs. (Maddala) Suryarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad440
Stone, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore in O.S. No. 7 of 1926, an action which was in the nature of a partition action, asking inter alia for a declaration that a certain mortgage is void, that the decree granted in an action brought by the mortgagee upon the mortgage should be set aside, that the consequential auction held following upon that decree should be set aside, and that certain alienations made before that suit was brought in order to pay the moneys due under that mortgage should also be set aside. The decree was granted in the suit as before mentioned brought by the mortgagee, in which suit there was a minor, which minor was represented by a Court guardian which Court guardian was a clerk of the Court having been appointed in consequence of the failure of the minor's uncle adequately to represent the minor's interests. The reason why it is now said the decree should be set aside is that that Court guardian was negligent and the ground...
Daiva Ammal and ors. Vs. Selvaramanuja Nayakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad479
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 55 -of 1922 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court of Tinnevelly and execution proceedings therein, the decree in O.S. No. 48 of 1915 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tuticorin and the decree in O.S. No. 35 of 1916 on the file of the Tinnevelly Sub-Court are not binding on him and his half share of the suit properties and for partition of the said half share by metes and bounds and for delivery of the same to him with future profits and coats. The lower Court gave the plaintiff a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1922 was not valid and binding on him and his half share in the plaint first and third schedule properties and in item 15 of the 2nd schedule. In this appeal we are concerned only with the first and third schedule properties. The result of the decree is, in the words of the learned Judge, the parties will b...
Balaram Chowdhari and anr. Vs. Harikrishna Chowdhari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad661; 163Ind.Cas.755
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition deals with an application for leave to appeal as a pauper under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The learned District Judge takes the view that his predecessor in ordering notice to issue may have intended to leave open the question as to whether or not after a perusal of the decree appealed from the Court had reason to think that it was contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law or otherwise erroneous or unjust-I am using here the words which appear in the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1-and he proceeds to hold that there is no reason so to think, and as a result the applicant was not allowed to appeal as a pauper. He says that 'whatever may be the presumption the fact is that in pauper applications as in appeals notice goes as a matter of routine. There is nothing in Order 44, Rule 1 prohibiting the consideration of this point after notice has gone.' I do not understand why the learned District Judge says that notice goes as a m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »