Chennai Court December 1935 Judgments
Pisipati Guruswamayya and anr. Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowment Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ315
Stone, J.1. This Civil Revision petition raises what is in my opinion an important point and one that I should like to have had more time to consider. On the other hand it is an Urgent matter which cannot conveniently be transferred to the next term or sent to another judge for disposal. The question in issue can be stated as follows: On behalf of the general body of worshippers of an excepted temple can some of them bring a suit for a declaration that a certain article in the temple is a sacred article the sale of which would be a breach of trust and for an injunction restraining such sale. It is said in the order which this petition seeks to revise that whether or not such a suit lies, the claim by way of an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit restraining the sale of the object in question should not be granted.2. Whether the suit lies or not is a matter of wide general importance. It may well be that these objects in question here are matters of no great moment. I say no...
Tag this Judgment!Kasthuri Varadhanamma Vs. Thanamala Muniswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad503; 163Ind.Cas.93; (1936)70MLJ491
Stone, J.1. This second appeal raises a short point which has been previously considered in Surendra Prasad v. Attabuddin 26 C.W.N. 391 where Newbould, J. held that an order passed at a stage of the suit before the plaint is registered, can be reviewed without notice to the other party. There is no other case exactly in point, but there are several cases where the question has been considered whether a decree or order can be reviewed after the claim has been registered, for example in Second appeal and on the question so arising there has been a conflict between Janaki Nath Hore v. Prabhasini Dasee I.L.R.(1915) 43 Cal. 178 on the one hand and Abdul Hakim Chowdhury v. Hem Chandra Das I.L.R.(1914) 42 Cal. 433 Surajpal Pandey v. Utim Pandey (1921) 6 Pat. L.J. 625 and Narayana Chettiar v. Muthu Chettiar : (1926)51MLJ219 on the other. In my opinion it is not necessary to consider this conflict because in the view I take it is not necessary to consider whether or not an order rejecting a pla...
Tag this Judgment!(Pispati) Gurusamayya and anr. Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad352
ORDERStone, J.1. This civil revision petition raises what is in my opinion an important point and one that I should like to have had more time to consider. On the other hand it is an urgent matter which cannot conveniently be transferred to the next term or sent to another Judge for disposal. The question in issue can be stated as follows : On behalf of the general body of worshippers of an excepted temple can some of them bring a suit for a declaration that a certain article in the temple is a sacred article the sale of which would be a breach of trust and for an injunction restraining such sale. It is said in the order which this petition seeks to revise that whether or not such a suit lies, the claim by way of an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit restraining the sale of the object in question should not be granted.2. Whether the suit lies or not is a matter of wide general importance. It may well be that these objects in question here are matters of no great moment. I ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarathna Mudaliar Vs. Sami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad682; (1936)71MLJ187
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of Survey No. 148 and a portion of Survey No. 147 in the village of Arnoor. The second defendant is the owner of the rest of Survey No. 147. The first defendant is the owner of survey No. 158 which is adjacent to Survey No. 147, and east of it but situate in the village of Overkudi. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to discharge not only the rain water but also the water utilised for irrigation purposes brought on to his land from an adjoining irrigation channel into the land of the first defendant through Survey No. 147 and for an injunction retraining the first defendant from causing obstruction to the flow.2. The plaintiff's case is that the lands, Survey Nos. 148 and 147, are high level lands and Survey No. 158 is land on a lower level, that from a long time the water which fell on the plaintiff's land always used to be drained through Survey No. 147, then into Survey No. 158 through a Madai in a bund which...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesa Moorthi Naidu Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad650
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was a defendant in a suit for profits of land regarding which the plaintiffs had got a decree in a possessory suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, against one Minakshi Ammal. This decree was executed and the plaintiffs got delivery. Afterwards the defendants are alleged to have trespassed and reaped the crops. The plaintiffs filed two suits, one against the present appellant and others who are alleged to have actually removed the crops, and another against the legal representatives of Minakshi who had died and her alleged tenants. The latter suit was to establish the plaintiff's title to the land. It appears that the two suits were tried together and that it was agreed that the decision of the suit for profits should depend upon the decision of the title suit, there being apparently no claim for profits in the title suit put forward on behalf of the legal representatives of Minakshi. The title suit brought by the plaintiff was dismissed, and in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Desu Reddiar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Reddi (Minor) by Next Friend Subba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad605; (1937)1MLJ41
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and. 7 and the principal contention urged before us on their behalf is that defendants 4 to 7 should not have been impleaded in this suit nor any declaration made to their prejudice. The question, arises under the following circumstances.2. One Bapu Reddi who admittedly owned most of the suit properties died on 28th July, 1922, leaving him surviving two widows Ammalu Ammal and Narasammal and a daughter by the former named Balambal. The two widows seem to have divided the property between themselves a few months after Bapu Reddi's death and Narasammal died in May, 1930. Ammalu Ammal and Balambal are defendants 2 and 3 in this suit.3. Defendants 4 to 7 are gnatis who would inherit the estate of Bapu Reddi after Balambal, should she happen to die sonless, but in September, 1926, Balambal adopted the plaintiff and this event practically defeated the chances of defendants 4 to 7 succeeding to the estate. The plaint suggests that defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Banakar Basappa Alias Dodda Basappa and anr. Vs. Hansaji Gulabchand Fi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad660; (1936)71MLJ333
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal who are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition attack an order refusing to set aside another order adjudicating the first appellant as an insolvent, the second appellant being one of the alienees in whose favour the alienations challenged in the insolvency are made. The adjudication was made by the learned District Judge in appeal reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge who dismissed the petition.2. It is argued that no appeal lies from an order under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, on the ground that the order now under appeal is really itself an appellate order of the District Judge. It seems to me that this contention is not tenable. Sub-Section 3 of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act reads:Any such person aggrieved by any other order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a Subordinate Court may appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. K. Sarangapani Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad320
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 26th March 1931, reversing in appeal the decree of the District Munsif, Tanjore, dated 28th September 1929, in O.S. No. 271 of 1928, a suit for the recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to have been illegally levied by the Government as ground rent from the plaintiff. The original plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his legal representatives. The only defendant is the Secretary of State for India. The only point that arose for decision in the suit was whether the imposition of ground rent by the Government in respect of 12 cents which formed part of T. S. No. 2153 is illegal. The District Munsif found that the imposition of ground rent was quite legal and dismissed the suit with costs. The Subordinate Judge in appeal was of opinion that the Government was not entitled to levy the ground rent in question and accordingly allowed the appeal and passed a decree in favour of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Banakar Basappa and anr. Vs. Hansji Gulabchand Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1935
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.959
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal who are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition attack an order refusing to set aside another order adjudicating the 1st appellant as an insolvent) the 2nd appellant being one of the alienees in whose favour the alienations challenged in the insolvency are made. The adjudication was made by the learned District Judge in appeal reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge who dismissed the petition.2. It is argued that no appeal lies from an order under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, on the ground that the order now 'under appeal is really itself an appellate order of the District Judge. It seems 1o me that this contention is not tenable. Sub-section 3 of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act reads:Any such person aggrieved by any other order made by a District Court otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a Subordinate Court may appeal to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivamali Goundan Vs. Ramaswmi Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad989
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated 1st November 1933, affirming the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, dated 18th November 1932, in O.S. No. 124 of 1931 a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has obtained a valid assignment of the rights of defendant 2 who was a chit holder or subscriber in a chit of which defendant 1 was the manager or stake holder, and was thus entitled to all the rights and was subject to all the liabilities of defendant 2. The assignor defendant 2 did not contest the suit. Defendant 1 denied that he had given his consent to the transfer in favour of the plaintiff and contended that in the absence of such consent the transfer was void under Rule 7 of the chit rules. This was the substantial defence in the suit though it was also alleged that the plaintiff had no cause of action. The allegation about the absence of the cause of action was not made the subject matter of an issue in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »