Chennai Court October 1936 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1936
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ178
Varadachariar, J.1. These cross-appeals arise out of the same suit and they may be dealt with together. The suit was instituted by the Secretary of State against the Sri Vyasaraya Swami Mutt (2nd defendant) which through its lessee the 1st defendant was in possession of the inam village of Vagaikulam in the Tinnevelly District. The lands in this village are irrigated by an artificial channel known as the 'North Kodai-melalagiankal' taking off from the Tambaraparni River. After flowing through a number of ayan villages and inam villages, this channel, at its tenth mile, enters the vagaikulam village and after flowing through that village for three quarters of a mile it enters the Government village of Mannarkoil and finally empties itself into certain ayan tanks. There have been prior litigations between the parties as to the extent of the rights possessed by the Mutt to take water from this channel. But this litigation is of a somewhat different character.2. Council The piaint aneged t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. R.S.S. Narayana Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad523
Varadachariar, J.1. These cross-appeals arise out of the same suit and they may be dealt with together. The suit was instituted by the Secretary of State against the Sri Vyasaraya Swami Mutt (defendant 2) which through its lessee, defendant 1, was in possession of the inam village of Vagaikulam in the Tinnevelly District. The lands in this village are irrigated by an artificial channel known as the 'North Kodaimelalagiankal' taking off from the Tambaraparni River. After flowing through a number of ayan villages and inam villages, this channel, at its tenth mile, enters the Vagaikulam village and after flowing through that village for three-quarters of a mile it enters the Government village of Mannarkoil and finally empties itself into certain ayan tanks. There have been prior litigations between the parties as to the extent of the rights possessed by the Mutt to take water from this channel. But this litigation is of a somewhat different character. The plaint alleged that on 9th and 1...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sivasankara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. R. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad264; (1937)1MLJ88
Burn, J.1. The decision of the learned District Judge is supported by the case reported in Venugopala Rao v. Venkatrayudu (1911) 10 M.L.T. 450 to which he refers. The cases reported in Ayyappa v. Venkatakrishnama Razu : (1892)2MLJ19 and Parthasarathi Ayyangar v. Rangaswami Ayyangar (1916) 4 L.W. 654 are cases in which a single landholder lad been recognised by the Collector as landholder, and therefore :hey do not apply to this case. Here it is clear that all the three brothers are landholders and though the appellant is the eldest brother and the managing member of the joint family of which all three are members, he has not been recognised or registered by the Collector under Section 3(5) of the Estates Land Act, simply because there has been no dispute between himself and his brothers. We have here three co-equal 'landholders' of whom only one tendered the patta in this case. Such a tender, I agree with the learned District Judge, is invalid. This appeal is dismissed with costs.2. Le...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasivam Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadaraja Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad325; (1937)1MLJ89
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam dated 6th March, 1936, directing the 3rd defendant to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 134-15-0 on his memorandum of appeal presented against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 323 of 1933 on the file of the said Court. This order was in supersession of the prior order passed by the same learned Judge on the 20th November, 1935, in and by which he had decided that the correct court-fee had been paid. The question is, has the learned Judge jurisdiction to pass the order under revision? In a recent case reported in Lakshmana Aiyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar : AIR1935Mad927 , Venkatasubba Rao, J., in a considered judgment held that once on an objection taken by the office or by a defendant, a Court applies its mind and gives its considered decision, it is final and its power to revise the valuation is at an end. No other interpretation is possib...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaratnam Chettiar Vs. Gunavanthalal Vidyasankar by Agent Narendrala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad472; (1937)1MLJ224
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree in small cause suit No. 2888 of 1924 on the file of the Small Cause Court, Trichinopoly, is not binding on the plaintiff or the family properties in his hands. The small causes suit was instituted on a promissory note executed by the plaintiff's undivided uncle, one Muthukrishna Chettiar, who died pending that suit. On his death the plaintiff who was then a minor was impleaded as the second defendant and all that appears at present is that he was represented by a Court guardian. The decree and the judgment show that the Court guardian engaged a vakil for the minor plaintiff and it was pleaded on his behalf that the deceased first defendant was not the managing member of the family and that the debt was incurred by him for immoral purposes. An issue was raised whether the suit promissory note was binding on the family. The small cause Judge held that the plaintiff in th...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Raju Chetty Vs. O.C. Raju Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ287
1. This is an appeal from an order of Lakshmana Rao, J., upon an application by the Committees of the estate of one Maragadammal, a lunatic, to sanction certain items of expenditure incurred by them since their appointment for which the previous sanction of the Court had not beers obtained. The expenditure was sanctioned by our learned brother. Hence this appeal.2. The facts of the case are that one Alagappa who died in 1903 had a wife named Angammal who died in 1909. He had three daughters, Ammakannu, who married Manicka Chetty, Maragadammal, the lunatic and Panchaksharammal. Ammakannu died before Alagappa and after her death Maragadaammal was given in marriage to Manicka Chetty. This was in the lifetime of Alagappa. Ammakannu and Manicka Chetty had two children, namely, Balasundaram and Rajammal. Alagappa made a will leaving some of his property to the lunatic and in that will directed her to continue to live with Balasundaram who was then living and his widow Angammal, Panchaksharam...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govinda Chettiar and ors. Vs. A.N. Muniswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad315
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput declining to grant restitution of the possession of a certain temple called Sri Kalatheeswaraswami in Chunnambukulam village together with all the keys, articles of worship, jewels, vahanams, etc., appurtenant thereto. The view taken by the learned District Judge is that no question of restitution arose, because there was no delivery of the property in pursuance of any order of Court. It seems to me that this view is sound. The case of the petitioners is that there was an order for a temporary injunction made in the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs and taking advantage of that order, the plaintiffs without notice to defendants forcibly took possession of the temple and its properties by breaking open the locks of the temple; this was according to them on or after 18th March 1935 when the lower Court made the said order of temporary injunction in the plaintiffs' favour. ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbratnam Chettiar Vs. Gunavathalal Vidyasankar by Agent Narendralal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.694
Varadacharur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 2888 of 1924 on the file of the Small Cause Court, Trichinopoly, is not binding on the plaintiff or the family properties in his hands. The Small Cause suit was instituted on a promissory note executed by the plaintiff's undivided uncle, one. Muthukrishna Chettiar, who died pending that suit. On his death the plaintiff who was then a minor was impleaded as the second defendant and all that appear at present is that he was represented by a Court guardian. The decree and the judgment show that the Court guardian engaged a Vakil for the minor plaintiff and it was pleaded on his behalf that the deceased first defendant was not the managing member of the family and that the debt was incurred by him for immoral purposes. An issue was raised whether the suit promissory-note was binding en the family. The Small Cause Judge held that the plaintiff in that...
Tag this Judgment!Nimmagadda Mahalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Nimmagadda Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ21
Mockett, J.1. In this pauper suit the petitioners-defendants were by the original decree ordered to pay Rs. 682-7-0 Court-fee to Government. On appeal that order was reversed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the court-fee. The petitioners applied to the trial Court under Sections 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that interest on the above amount should be paid to them by the respondent. We do not consider that money paid to Government in a pauper suit by way of court-fee can be held to be money liable to be dealt with by way of restitution, under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. Restitution seems to imply money paid by one party to the other or to the credit of the other and a restoration of that money with interest to the person entitled to it by the person to whom or to whose credit it was originally wrongly paid under orders of Court. In this case the Government are the recipients of the money.2. But while holding the above we consider that Section 151 may well apply...
Tag this Judgment!Elavarthi Venkatanarasimharaju Vs. M. Siddha Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad349; (1937)1MLJ399
Varadachariar, J.1. A number of questions, some of them by no means free from doubt or difficulty, have been raised in the course of the arguments in this second appeal. I propose to refer to most of them, but it seems to me sufficient for the purpose of the decision of this second appeal to express a final opinion upon only some of them. The other questions I prefer to leave open, because the scheme of the Estates Land Act in relation to claims preferred on the analogy of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, is very obscure.2. The properties in suit are ryoti lands situate in a proprietary village, and in 1904, the tenancy right in them belonged to one Ragaviah and his son Muthuswamy Aiyah. These two persons had executed a mortgage Ex. A, in favour of the first plaintiff's father on the security of these lands. Muthuswamy Aiyah died in 1911 leaving a widow Guruvamma. Raghaviah died in 1914 and this case has proceeded on the footing that all the lands passed by survivorship to Ragh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »