Chennai Court March 1935 Judgments
S.P. Sundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Karuppayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1073; 160Ind.Cas.1015; (1935)69MLJ48
Ramesam, J.1. For reasons which will appear lower down it will be convenient to take up the latest of these Second Appeals Nos., viz., 292 and 293 of 1933. These Second Appeals arise out of two suits filed under Section 144 of Act I of 1908. The plaintiff is the same ryot and the defendant is the same landlord in both cases. In Summary Suit No. 1077 of 1930 (S.A. No. 293 of 1933) he holds under patta No. 47 and in the other suit No. 1078 of 1930 (S.A. No. 292 of 1933) he holds under patta No. 27. The suits are filed on the ground that the defendant levied an extra charge for water supplied to the suit holdings in addition to the dry rate to which the lands were admittedly liable. The lands were formerly dry lands. After the Periyar project came, they had the benefit of the Periyar water and the lands were converted into wet lands and on account of this the defendant charged a higher rate. The question in these Second Appeals is whether this higher rate is leviable. In paragraph 3 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Adapa Papamma and anr. Vs. Darbha Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad860; 158Ind.Cas.187; (1935)69MLJ451
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cocanada, dated 8th October, 1930, dismissing a petition for executing the decree in O. Section No. 61 of 1920 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cocanada, as against the first judgment-debtor. The petitioner is the son and legal representative of the deceased second decree-holder and he applied to execute the decree for the benefit of the first decree-holder who did not join in the application. The decree sought to be executed was dated 28th September, 1922, and the application was made on 12th October, 1928 for realising the mesne profits and costs awarded by the decree by arresting the first judgment-debtor and by attaching his properties as well as those of some other judgment-debtors. The application was resisted by the first judgment-debtor alone, and on two main grounds, namely, that there was an oral agreement between him and the petitioner in his capacity as agent of the two plaintiffs in the s...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.354; (1935)69MLJ552
Ramesam, J.1. These are second appeals against the decree in A.S. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1930 of the District Judge of Tinnevelly which are cross appeals against the decree in O.S. No. 101 of 1928 of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly. That suit was filed by four plaintiffs against the Government for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to levy water cess on the lands described in the plaint second schedule, for a refund of cess collected and for an injunction. The District Munsif decreed the suit and on appeal his decree was confirmed by the District Judge. The Plaintiffs though they succeeded in the first Court filed an appeal (A.S. No. 17) against a finding of the District Munsif. It is doubtful whether such an appeal lies as in all such cases the respondents can support the decree on the ground that any finding of the lower Court which is against them ought to have been decided in their favour. However the District Judge considered the appeal and confirmed the finding of the...
Tag this Judgment!Mutyala Dorayya and anr. Vs. Marina Mangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad130; 158Ind.Cas.611; (1935)69MLJ320
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 3 to 6 on 12th February, 1925, will not be operative as against the plaintiffs after the death of the first defendant. The first defendant is a daughter of one Subbayya who had three sons, namely, the first plaintiff, the second defendant and the second plaintiff's father. It would appear that some time before 1900 there was a partition in the family, not evidenced by any document, and that at that time about 24 acres of land were allotted to the first defendant. The plaintiffs attempted to prove an express arrangement at the time that the first defendant was to take only a life interest in the property. The Courts below have refused to believe the oral evidence on this point and I see no reason to go behind their view in this matter. The plaintiffs also relied upon a document, Ex. A, of 1900 wherein it is provi...
Tag this Judgment!L.A. Krishna Aiyar Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ349
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The facts in these appeals are that the appellant L.A. Krishna Aiyar obtained a decree against one S.R. Sabramania Aiyar and his mother on 20th January, 1919, the suit being upon two promissory notes. Previously he had got an attachment of S.R. Subramania Aiyar's immoveable property on 18th October, 1918. Whilst this attachment was in force, Subramania Aiyar executed a mortgage of his immoveable properties on 7th November, 1918 for Rs. 50,000 directing the mortgagee to pay Rs. 4,000 to the plaintiff-appellant and this sum was allowed as a credit when the decree in the suit was passed. On the date of the decree, the decree-holder, the appellant here, applied for the arrest of Subramania Aiyar but that petition was dismissed. He then filed a second execution petition for the sale of the properties attached before judgment. That petition was also dismissed, this time for the decree-holder's default, on 19th April, 1922. He filed a third execution p...
Tag this Judgment!Akkaraju Visvanadham and ors. Vs. Duthalur Anjaneyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad865
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Nellore, dated 29th July 1931 in appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, dated 19th September 1928, in O.S. No. 12 of 1927, a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint mentioned immovable properties, and that the adoption of defendant 1, by the late Seethamma is not true and valid. The plaintiff claims as the heir of the last owner of the properties. The properties originally belonged to one Venkatanarasayya and he disposed of them by a will dated 26th February 1898. He died about a week later. The material portion of the will which is addressed to his wife runs as follows:On my death all my movable and immovable properties you should keep in your possession and enjoyment and at the time of your death deliver possession thereof to my daughter Seshamma, During the time you are in possession of the estate you should not make a gift or sale thereof. You should spend th...
Tag this Judgment!Thirthagiri Udayan and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad884; 159Ind.Cas.172
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem dated 14th February 1933 setting aside in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Salem dated 6th November 1930 in O.S. No 650 of 1929 and remanding the suit to the trial Court for disposal according to law. The suit which was one for recovery of the amount due under a mortgage dated 10th May 1911 had been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. So far as the claim against defendant 1 was concerned the plaintiffs appealed and the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred as against defendant 1 and the items of the hypotheca other than items 4 to 6. The only point raised in this appeal is that this finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation is wrong. The mortgage-deed in question provided that the mortgage amount with interest was to be paid within three years from the date thereof but there was a default cl...
Tag this Judgment!Thanmull Sowcar and anr. Vs. K. Krishnaswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad988
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff tinder Section 73(2), Civil P.C. Section 73(1), Civil P.C., relates to rateable distribution among decree-holders. Section 73(2) says:Where all or any of the assets liable to be rateably distributed under this section are paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets.2. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff (respondent) is the assignee-decree-holder in O.S. No. 64 of 1917 on the file of the Sub-Court of Chingleput and he has by the assignment become the holder of a personal decree against the judgment-debtor, one Narayanaswami Reddiar. In execution of the decree he applied in the Sub-Court for the attachment of Narayanaswami Raddiar's properties on 5th March 1924 and obtained an order of attachment on 10th March 1924. The defendant (appellant) also obtained a mo...
Tag this Judgment!Mulukutla Atchuta Ramayyagaru Vs. the Official Receiver, East Godavari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ241
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of East Godavari declaring void as against the Official Receiver a decree obtained by the appellant here, the first respondent in the lower Court, against the second respondent in the lower Court an insolvent. A petition to adjudicate the second respondent in the lower Court and his son was presented on 3rd February, 1931. The second respondent owed moneys on pro-notes to one Mulkutla Atchutaramanna, afterwards the 22nd creditor in the list of creditors filed by the insolvent and the appellant here. He threatened the second respondent with a suit and the second respondent executed an agreement in favour of the appellant here on 19th Marth, 1930, undertaking not to alienate his immoveable property till his debt was discharged and undertaking to execute a mortgage bond in his favour for the amount due whenever demanded by him. On the strength of this agreement the appellant filed a suit...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kanniappa Mudaliar Vs. the Secretary of State for India-in-council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad42; 159Ind.Cas.13; (1935)69MLJ728
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are ryotwari holders of lands registered wet, the source of irrigation assigned by the Government being a shuttered sluice in a channel in the Periyar system. On 3rd July, 1925 a lascar of the P.W.D. discovered that the shutter of the sluice intended to allow 2 1/2 inches of water to pass had been forced open, with the result that water 2 feet deep was passing into the distributory channel irrigating the plaintiffs' lands. It was found that the lock of the shutter had been removed, as also the cross bar. The plaint lands were then partly under seedlings and partly ploughed. The next morning at about 11 A.M. the shutter was put back in place, the water having by then irregularly flowed on to the plaintiffs' lands for about 20 hours. The Government on the ground that there was unauthorised irrigation, collected water-rate from the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (VII of 1865). The plaintiffs brought the suits out of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »