Chennai Court February 1935 Judgments
Muthalagappa Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Navanestheswara Gurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad668; (1935)69MLJ42
Varadachariar, J.1. Though the distinction between 'easements of necessity' and 'quasi easements'is not very clearly adverted to in the plaint, the facts found by the Courts below clearly warrant the application of the principle of Section 13 of the Easements Act.2. It has next been argued that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 120 (of the Limitation Act) or even Article 144 calculating the period of six years or twelve years from 1911 when according to the plaintiff there was some obstruction to the water course. In support of this contention, reference was made to some observations in Zamindar of Kurupam v. Zamindar of Merangi I.L.R.(1882) 5 Mad. 253 and Muthu Goundan v. Anantha Goundan (1915) 31 I.C. 528. In both these cases the suit was held to be in time whether Article 120 or Article 144, applied and it was not therefore necessary for the learned Judges to consider whether the case would be governed by Section 23 of the Limitation Act or not. On the other hand, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nemichand Sowcar Vs. N. Namberumal Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad671; (1935)69MLJ45
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is whether the view of the learned City Civil Judge that the proper Court-fee has been paid on the plaint, is right. It is assumed by the judge, and is conceded here, that if the valuation for the purpose of court-fee is determined, the same valuation has to be adopted for the purpose of jurisdiction. The material facts may be briefly stated. On the 28th June, 1928 the second defendant granted a mortgage for Rs. 4,000, in favour of the first, over two items of his properties. Thereafter, the former filed against the latter C.S. No. 488 of 1928 on the file of the High Court, contending that the mortgage was not fully supported by consideration. In September, 1932 a decree was passed in that suit, granting redemption on payment of Rs. 1,375 and interest thereupon. During the pendency of the appeal that had been filed from that decree (O.S.A. No. 93 of 1932), the second defendant in February, 1933 mortgaged certain properties including the two it...
Tag this Judgment!Km. Kr. Km. Kuppan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kuttia Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.1; (1935)69MLJ121
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether proviso (c) to Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code applied. A decree was obtained by the first Respondent's predecessor and by virtue of that decree, a charge was created in respect of the judgment-debtor's property. It is stated, though in my opinion it is an unnecessary detail, that the suit filed by him was to entorce his unpaid vendor's lien. The first respondent brought the property to sale, but before the realisation of the assets, the petitioner in this Court, the rival decree-holder applied for rateable distribution. The lower Court has, after carefully considering the question, negatived his claim.2. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar for the petitioner contends that proviso (c) applies where the charge is a pre-existing one i.e., where it exists independent of the decree and not where as in the present instance, it is created by the decree itself. There is no warrant in the words of the Section for this limited construct...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad764; (1935)69MLJ544
Varadachariar, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of the invalidity of the orders passed by the District Collector of West Godavari on 7th June, 1925 and 24th February, 1926, cancelling in part an assignment of land made to the plaintiffs' father on 9th June, 1922. In the alternative, plaintiffs claimed compensation for improvements effected by them on the land. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit but the lower appellate Court decreed it. Hence this Second Appeal by the Secretary of State.2. It will be convenient to refer to a few documents, before dealing with the only question which to my mind is the material question in the case, namely, that raised by Issue No. 6. The plaintiffs' father was Government servant for a long period and under some rule in force at the time it was considered that he could be helped by the assignment of certain lands on dharkhast. So far as I can gather from the documents in the case, the ide...
Tag this Judgment!Gangu Veerabrahmam Vs. Gangu Jagannadhacharyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ184
Cornish, J.1. The appeal is by a creditor against the dismissal of his petition to have the respondents, his debtors, adjudicated insolvent. Three acts of insolvency were alleged in the petition. But the only one with which we are concerned with in this appeal is under Section 6(g) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, namely, that the debtor gave notice to a creditor the petitioner, that he had suspended or was about to suspend payment of his debts.2. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, which in its material particulars is adopted by the second respondent, that the debtors are artisan goldsmiths and that they had incurred debts amounting to Rs. 2,400, of which a sum of Rs. 1,040 represented a mortgage debt on their property. In order to meet their creditors the respondents sold their property and offered to make a rateable distribution among their unsecured creditors, after satisfying the mortgage-debt, of the balance of the sale proceeds. The amount so av...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Venkatasubramania Ayyar and ors. Vs. S. Sivagurunatha Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1938Mad60
Ramesam J.1. The facts on which the suit (out of which this appeal arises) is based are as follows: One Kalayana Rama Ayyar of Kumbakonam established a choultry as a rest house and for feeding Brahmins and endowed certain properties for its maintenance and upkeep. It became known as Kalyana Rama Ayyar Chatram He died in about 1855 leaving five sons. On 22nd August 1864, there was a partition between the sons by Ex. A which provided that the eldest son Sivasubramania Ayyar should conduct the charity during his lifetime and after him the other brothers in order of seniority. In the year 1871 Sivasubramania Ayyar surrendered the management of the choultry in favour of the next two brothers Venkataranga Ayyar and Suri Ayyar. The fourth son Swaminatha Ayyar died in 1881 after disposing of his property by his will dated 7th November 1881 (Ex. B). Under this will two thirds of the income of his properties were devised to his wife Chellathammal for her life, and the remaining one third was to ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajambal Vs. Thangam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad640; 157Ind.Cas.942
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura, dismissing She appellant's application, dated 4th April 1932, under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., for a personal decree on the ground that the application was time barred. It was agreed in the lower Court that Aris 181, Lim. Act, applies to this case. That article gives a period of three years from 'the time when the right to apply accrues. The sale of the property in Court auction took place on 12th October 1925. There was an application to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud or irregularity, which was dismissed on '22nd February 1926 upon which date the sale ?was confirmed. The judgment, debtor ?filed an appeal against the order of dismissal and that appeal was dismissed 'toy the High Court on 10th November 1930. The dispute is as to when the right to apply under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C, accrued. The respondents successfully contended in the lower Court that 'the right accrued on...
Tag this Judgment!Vadiyangati Chinnarigadu Vs. Kotigari Rangayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad789
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The question in this second appeal is whether the plaininna Kimedi Estate against one Sri Kundana Devi Patto Mahadevi. The following is a brief history of the execution1917 and are concerned with the fifth attempt at execution. The decrees were obtained by the proprietor of the Cht . 1. These are appeals which arise from proceedings in execution of three connected appellate decrees passed in iff, the zamindar, has proved that the suit land is his private home-farm land. The suit village is a separated portion of a main village and covers 300 acres of land, wet and dry. The portion of this village is called Khas Baghayat. These two terms indicate that the land is held by the zamindars and cultivated by themselves for their own benefit. The question whether the land belongs to the zamindar as his private land has to be decided with reference to the burden of proof enacted in Section 185, Estates Land Act. That burden lies on the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. Aminjikarai Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad725
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The short question for decision in the second appeal is whether the plaintiff has a valid title to the suit property. The property in question was originally a water pandal inam. The Government resumed it and issued a patta in favour of the plaintiff in 1925. The order of the Collector to issue the patta was in these terms : 'A ryotwari patta should be issued to the persons in possession of the inam land.' It was in consequence of this order that the patta was issued to the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff was not the person in possession of the land at the time when the patta was granted, that he was the person in possession of it at that time and that the issue of the patta is therefore invalid; and that even if valid he should be given compensation for the building which he has erected on the suit site. He also relied in support of his title on a patta granted to him subsequently in the year 1927. The Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!Vavilala Vasudeva Sastri and anr. Vs. Sreemathi Yarlagadda Annapurnamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad809; (1935)69MLJ137
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The application in the lower Court was an application under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying for a declaration that the scheduled property belonged to the insolvent and for a direction that the Official Receiver might sell the property for the benefit of the general body of creditors. The affidavit in support of the application, whilst stating other facts, stated that the petitioners (appellants here) filed a petition before the second respondent, the Official Receiver of Kistna, asking him to take up the matter and move the Court but that the Official Receiver rejected the petition although all the materials were placed before him upon which to take the necessary steps. The Official Receiver, the second respondent here, was also made a party to the application.2. The first point to be decided is whether the preliminary objection taken in the lower Court was well-founded. That was, that an application such as this could not be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »