Chennai Court February 1937 Judgments
M.P.S. Syed Muhammad Salihu Rowther Vs. Syed Sultan Mohideen Sahib Ali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ386
Horwill, J.1. A vacancy occurred in the Tinnevelly District Mosque Committee. Under Section 10 of the Religious Endowments Act of 1863, all persons interested can elect a member to fill the vacancy. If that is not done within three months, the Civil Court, on the application of any person, may appoint a person to fill the vacancy. In the present case the District Judge of Tinnevelly was moved to fill this vacancy; but he declined to do so and ordered that the vacancy be forthwith filled up by the remaining members of the committee. Applications for the vacant post put in before the District Judge were forwarded to the committee for consideration and notices were affixed to the principal mosque in the District and in the office of the committee. Before the meeting notices went to all the four members, of the committee; but one refused to attend. He wrote a letter to the Court stating that he was quite sure that the remaining three members intended to appoint the petitioner and that he h...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endownments Vs. Par ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ368
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Madras Hindu Religious Enaowments Board against a decree of the District Court at Guntur cancelling a scheme framed by the Board in 1929 for the proper administration of the affairs of a Vishnu temple at Manthena, a village in the Gannavaram Taluq of the Kistna District. The scheme purported to deal with the temple as the temple of Sri Gopalaswami (or Venugopalaswami) and it vested certain properties in trustees to be appointed for the temple. The plaintiffs (respondents 1-3) who were in possesslon of these properties raised a contention, even before the scheme was framed, that the temple of Gopalaswami in that village had fallen into ruins before 1819, that there is no such temple now in existence and that the Board was confusing it with the temple now in existence which was built by the villagers between 1819 and 1847 and dedicated to a different Clauseanar, J. deity named Chennakesavaswami. Relying on the decision in Hindu Religious Endow...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.T. Kumaraswami Chettiar Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Relig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad940
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. In this petition, I am asked to revise an order of the District Judge of Trichinopoly dismissing an application under Section 84, Clause 2, Religious Endowments Act. The dispute between the parties relates to a communal temple. The petitioners here seek to maintain that no particular families have any hereditary right to the trusteeship in connexion with the said temple, and that it is merely subject to the general management of the community resident in the village. The respondents have all along been maintaining that they have the hereditary right of management. When the matter was before the Endowments Board, the respondentia proceeded further and claimed that it was a private temple. The Endowments Board rejected that claim; but it was of opinion that the present trustees who represented three families have been managing the temple hereditarily. The Board accordingly held that the temple was an 'excepted' temple. The present petitioners filed an application...
Tag this Judgment!Cherukur Krishniah Vs. Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss Krishna Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad47
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals and the connected second appeal raise more or less the same questions and maybe conveniently dealt with together. The suits out of which they arise were Instituted by the same plaintiff against persons in possession of different portions of the former Karvetnagar zamindari and the plaintiff claims to recover from them a certain sum of money representing arrears of what is described in the plaint as kavimera on the allegation that more than 200 years ago, there was a grant by the then Rajah of Karvetnagar to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title of certain inams in the Karvetnagar zamindari and also of a hereditary right to receive a small fraction of the zamindar's melvaram in each village in the zamindari. The arrears were claimed in the various suits for a varying number of years, according as the plaintiff had not received satisfaction in respect of his claims from the various persons in possession for prior periods.2. The defences to the plaintiff's...
Tag this Judgment!Pendyala Basawanjanayulu and ors. Vs. Lingamullu Ramalingayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad115
ORDERStodart, J.1. This petition, C.R.P. No. 284, is by the minor sons of Pendyala Subba Rao and is a sequel to Order Rule P. No. 1605 of 1932. In C.M.P. 4021 petitioners apply to be recognized as Subba Rao'a legal representatives and this petition is granted. Subba Rao filed C.R.P. 1605 in this Court to vacate a decree which had been passed against him for Rs. 628. The decree had been passed on an award and no appeal lay against it. That is why Subba Rao had to come by way of a petition to the High Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. This Court set aside the decree and directed the trial Court to make a fresh decree after giving Subba Rao an opportunity to substantiate his objections to the award. That order was passed on 10th May 1934. But when the trial Court took up the suit for retrial, it discovered that Subba Rao had died on 7th January 1934, a fact which of course the High Court did not know when it passed orders in C.R.P. No. 1605.2. The trial Court without bringing on the pre...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ramaswamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Al.Sp.Pl. Subramanian Chettiar by Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad267; (1938)2MLJ179
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent presented a petition in insolvency against a Hindu father and his two sons to have them declared insolvents. The two sons are the petitioners. Their father executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent for Rs. 1,500 on 6th June, 1931. On 4th March, 1932, the respondent made a demand upon the father for payment of the promissory note debt. Between that date and 14th March, 1932, there were a series of alienations of joint family property, the petitioners with their father being parties to these alienations. On 27th June, 1932, the respondent presented the insolvency petition already referred to on the ground that the father in his capacity as family manager had executed the promissory note in question and alleging that the debt was binding on all the members of the family and that the debt had not been discharged in spite of repeated demands. He alleged that the three respondents to the insolvency petition had brought abou...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Moorthy Vs. Eli Vadapalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad660; 173Ind.Cas.169
Mockett, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari praying that the order of the District Magistrate of East Godavari dated 23rd December 1936 declaring the petitioner's primary election void and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Cocanada dated 31st December 1936 should be quashed. The determination of this matter turns very largely on the construction of the rules framed by the Governor of Madras in Council and it raises a point of some importance relating to the powers of the High Court. Para. 20, Schedule 5, Government of India Act, 1935, reads as follows:In so far as provision with respect to any matter is not made by this Act or by His Majesty in Council, the Governor, exercising his individual judgment, may make rules for carrying into effect the foregoing provisions of this schedule and the provisions of Schedule 6 and securing the due constitution of the Provincial Legislature and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the for...
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Ramiah Alias Ramasastri Vs. Madala Thathiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad849; (1938)1MLJ320
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out or a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of mesne profits for faslis 1337 to 1339 from the defendants. The District Munsiff of Guntur gave a decree but it was reversed by the Subordinate Judge of Guntur on the ground that the action is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs filed a suit (O.S. No. 1013 of 1927) on the file of the District Munsiff of Guntur for recovery of possession of the land in respect whereof the mesne profits are claimed. They also claimed in that suit mesne profits both past and future, but while giving a decree in plaintiffs favour, the District Munsiff did not pass a decree for mesne profits subsequent to suit and the reason given by him is thus stated in paragraph 30 of his judgment in the said suit:No provision is made for recovery of subsequent profits, as it was represented that the 1st plaintiff had filed a suit in the Sub-Court, Guntur, for recovery of them.2. The suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Vadhyar Vs. Manian Vadhyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad586; 173Ind.Cas.319
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petition relates to a suit upon a promissory note executed by defendant 1 who is the elder brother of defendants 2 and 3. The promissory note is dated 16th July 1928 and the suit was filed on 22nd October 1934. To save limitation two part payments were relied on: one on 10th September 1930 and the other on 25th December 1931. Both these payments were endorsed on the promissory note as part payments towards interest and the endorsements were in the handwriting of and signed by defendant 1. Both part payments were made after a partition between the brothers. It was alleged that the suit debt was one binding on defendants 2 and 3 and the suit was brought by the assignee of the promissory note. I am considering this question on the assumption that defendant 1 executed the promissory note as family manager on behalf of the family for a purpose binding on the family, although the lower Court has not considered this question, having decided as a preliminary issue that...
Tag this Judgment!Davood Mohideen Rowther Vs. Sahabdeen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad667; 173Ind.Cas.285; (1937)2MLJ223
Venkataraman Rao, J.1. The facts sufficient for the disposal of these revision petitions are fully stated in the order of reference and it is unnecessary to repeat them. On those facts the question arises whether, after a person is adjudged an insolvent, a suit filed by a creditor for the recovery of a debt provable in insolvency without the leave of the Insolvency Court is maintainable and can the Court in which the suit is instituted give leave to continue it? The sections of the Provincial Insolvency Act relevant to this question are Sections 28 and 29. Section 28, Clause 2 runs thus:On the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a Receiver as hereinafter provided, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »