Chennai Court February 1937 Judgments
Parimi Chakrapani Naidu Vs. Mathapalli Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad647; (1937)1MLJ611
Cornish, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. He has been held liable by the lower appellate Court to damages for the loss to the plaintiff of three years' cultivation of his fields on the ground that this loss was caused initially by the defendant's wrongful obstruction to the plaintiff's right to bund a water channel. The facts are that plaintiff and defendant had a dispute over the former's right to bund this channel. The plaintiff put up a bund and the defendant removed it. The defendant then laid an information under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On that information the Magistrate, after taking statements from both parties, made an order that the plaintiff should not raise a bund or divert the water from the channel until he had obtained a decree or order of a competent Court adjudging him to be entitled to raise such bund. A subsequent suit by the plaintiff resulted in his right to bund the channel being upheld. The Magistrate's order was made on 21st November, 1924...
Tag this Judgment!Nanu Nair Vs. Puthan Veetil Karthiyayini Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad547; (1937)1MLJ618
King, J.1. The question here is whether an adoptive father is liable under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay maintenance to his adopted child. There appears to be no direct authority on the point. In Abdul Rahim v. Mst. Amir Begum I.L.R. (1926) 7 Lah. 365 however it was held that a step-father is not bound to pay maintenance to his step-son even though, apparently before he deserted his wife he had in fact been maintaining the step-son. While sympathising with the point of view taken by the learned Joint Magistrate, I must, I think, look to the strict words of the section--and from them it seems clear that an adopted child does not fall within the phrase 'his legitimate or illegitimate child'.2. The order is accordingly set aside so far as it awards maintenance for the child....
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Yusuf and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad642; (1937)2MLJ170
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is one of limitation. The facts necessary for its disposal may be briefly stated. The suit property belonged to one Doraisami Pillai who mortgaged it to one Narayanasami Aiyar in 1903. Subsequent to this mortgage, Doraisami Pillai executed another mortgage of the said property and some other property in favour of one Swaminatha Pillai in 1905. In 1906, Narayanasami Aiyar instituted a suit on his mortgage, O.S. No. 265 of 1906 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tiruvarur, without impleading the second mortgagee Swaminatha Pillai, and in execution of the decree obtained thereon, purchased the property in 1908 and took delivery of the same in March, 1909. In 1915 the suit property was sold to the plaintiff's father and it was in the possession of the plaintiff's family till 1928, when the plaintiff was dispossessed in execution of the decree obtained by the fourth defendant. Swaminatha Pillai assigned his mort...
Tag this Judgment!S. Soomar Sait and Sons by their Partner A.M. Soomar Sait Vs. P.V. Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad666; (1937)2MLJ221
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The lower Court's decision is correct. The plaintiffs are Cutchi Memons carrying on business as motor dealers. They are members of the same family carrying on the business of their father's before he died. They sued in the lower Court for the price of a second-hand motor car sold by them to the defendant. One defence raised was that by reason of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act the plaintiffs being an unregistered partnership were not entitled to sue and that contention the lower Court upheld and dismissed the suit on that as well as on other grounds. The argument there was that Cutchi Memons are to be included in the latter part of Section 5 of the Indian Partnership Act which reads:The relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status; and, in particular, the members of a Hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, or a Burmese Buddhist husband and wife carrying on business as such are not partners in s...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppireddigari Lingareddi Vs. Panduru Guru Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad674
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. It is unfortunate that the respondent does not appear, but on the material before me I must hold that the lower Court's order is wrong. After some witnesses had been examined, the case was adjourned to 26th February 1935. On that day, as the order paper shows, the defendant did not appear and his pleader reported that he had no instructions, the Special Deputy Collector made a note to the effect that judgment was reserved. Immediately the defendant came to Court and filed a petition supported by an affidavit, praying that the ex parte decree passed against him should be set aside. In his affidavit he says that he had gone to Tirupathi in order to fetch his vakil and by the time he could attend Court along with his witnesses, an ex parte decree had been passed. It is obvious that the defendant filed this petition under the mistaken belief that a decree had already been passed.2. In fact, judgment was delivered on a subsequent day, namely, 15th March 1935, and...
Tag this Judgment!Kolicherla Seshacharlu and ors. Vs. Vidwan Ramanujacharulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad789; 173Ind.Cas.533
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this Second appeal is whether the properties involved in the suit, a house and lands, are trust properties dedicated to a charitable trust. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs as representatives of the Sri Vaishnava Brahmins who are claimed to be the beneficiaries under the said trust to have it declared that a decree obtained by defendant 2 against defendant 1 in O.S. No. 354 of 1930 on the file of the Tirupathi District Munsif's Court on the foot of a mortgage of the suit property executed by defendant 1 is not binding on the trust. The trust mentioned in the plaint is the feeding of Brahmins or Brahmin pilgrims that assemble in Tiruchanur near Tirupati during the Brahmotsavam festival of Sri Padmavati Thayarammal. The said trust is alleged to have been founded in the year 1914 by the disciples of defendant 1 who is an acharya or guru, and defendant 1 constituted a trustee. Both the lower Courts have negatived the plaintiffs' claim...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Yusuf and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.576
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is one of limitation. The facts necessary for its disposal may be briefly stated. The suit property belonged to one Doraisami Pillai who mortgaged it to one Narayanasami Ayyar in 1903. Subsequent to this mortgage, Doraisami Pillai executed another mortgage of the said property and some other property in favour of one Swaminath Pillai in 1905. In 1906 Narayanasami Ayyar instituted a suit on his mortgage O.S. No. 265 of 1906 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvarur, without, impleading the second mortgagee Swami-nath Pillai, and in execution of the decree obtained thereon, purchased the property in 1908 and took delivery of the same in March 1909. In 1915 the suit property was sold to the plaintiff's father and it was in the possession of the plaintiff's family till 1928, when the plaintiff was dispossessed in executtion of the decree obtained by defendant No. 4. Swaminath Pillai assigned his mortgage in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Meyyappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad779; 172Ind.Cas.468
Horwill, J.1. In execution of a decree, a sale was held on June 24, 1922, which was confirmed on July 25, 1922.. An application to aside the sale was made and an order passed setting aside the sale on December 17, 1923- There was an appeal to the District Judge, a second appeal to the High Court, and a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment in second appeal. All these appeals to which the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser were parties were dismissed; the first appeal on November 12, 192t, the second appeal on February 21, 1928, and the Letters Patent Appeal on September 13, 1929. The present application was put in under Order XXI, Rule 93, by the auction-purchaser for refund of the purchase money, as the sale had been set aside. This was on August 29, 1932. The question arises whether this application, is barred by limitation, which would depend on whether, as contended by the decree holder, three years are allowed from the date of setting aside the sale or, as contended by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja of Vizianagaram Vs. Perla Annapuranamma Garu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad219
Stodart, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He is the Raja of Vizianagaram and the defendants represent the proprietors of the Mokhasa village of Konda Konguva in the Raja's zamindari. The Rajah, during the suit years, included in the sum he paid to the Government as land cess due on his estate under the Madras Local Boards Act 14 of 1920 a certain sum as being the cess due on the rental value of the suit village and he claims that he is entitled under the proviso to Section 88 of the Act to collect from Mokhasadars what he had paid to the Government. There is no question that the payment of land casa under the Act is a proper burden on this village. The defendants however object to pay it through the landholder. They do not deny the liability to pay but claim to pay direct to the Government. Nevertheless the point now in dispute is somewhat important, too important, I think to be raised in a suit like this, which on the surface is concerned only with the machin...
Tag this Judgment!Poovankulathil Thottam Puthiya Purayil Abdullah Vs. Kakkat Valappil Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad865
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment to recover possession of the suit land with arrears of rent and future profits from defendant 1 who was in occupation thereof. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded in the suit as assignees of defendant 1. The suit property admittedly belonged to a devaswom known as Puthankottan Devaswam. The uraima right was held, according to the findings of both the lower Courts, by four uralans who are the karnavans for the time being of four different tarwads, namely Neelangapurath, Edavan Putta-lath, Erambala and Thiyancheri Kaloth. Defendant 1 occupied the land under a marupat dated 24th June 1912, Ex. A, granted by the uralans Neelangapurath Appa alias Chidan Nambiar and Edavan Puthalath Krishnan Nambiar, the then karnavans of their respective tarwads. It was to run for a period of 12 years and at the end of the term, defendant 1 undertook to surrender possession on payment to him of the kuzhikur value. Four years thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »