Chennai Court March 1937 Judgments
R. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar Vs. the Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad970; (1937)2MLJ660
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura dated 18th October, 1932, affirming on appeal the decree of the principal Subordinate Judge of Madura dated 28th February, 1930, in O.S. No. 120 of 1928 which was a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,625 from the defendants, three in number. The principal allegations were that the first defendant who was the trustee of the plaint mentioned Devasthanam, Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, from 1919 to April, 1926, had been grossly negligent as regards certain items set forth in Schedule II to the plaint, and that his negligence had caused loss to the Devasthanam which he was bound to make good. The other two defendants were impleaded on the ground that they had executed a security bond binding themselves to make good to the Devasthanam any loss that might be caused by the first defendant's breach of duty or negligence, etc The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as against defendants 2 and 3 and the only item in resp...
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnaswami Iyengar Vs. Sri Kallalagar Devastanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.166
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura dated October 18, 1932, affirming on appeal the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Madura, dated February 28, 1930 in O.S. No. 120 of 1928 which was a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,625 from the defendants, three in number. The principal allegations were that defendant No. 1 who was the trustee of the plaint mentioned Devastanam, Sri Kallalagar Devastanam, from 1919 to April 1326, had been grossly negligent as regards certain items set forth in Scheduled 2, to the plaint, and that his negligence had caused loss to the Devastanam which he was bound to make good. The other two defendants were impleaded on the ground that they had executed a security bond binding themselves to make good to the Devastanam any loss that might be caused by defendant No. 1's breach of duty or negligence, etc. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and the only item in respect of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Mohideen Bi Vs. Bashu Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad809; (1937)2MLJ278
ORDERKing, J.1. In this case, maintenance was claimed by a Muhammadan wife for herself and her children. It was found by the learned Magistrate that the respondent made a bona fide offer to maintain them in his own house, which petitioner, his wife, unreasonably refused to accept. Her application was accordingly dismissed. In revision it is argued that the Magistrate should have awarded maintenance to the children, whose legal guardian their mother is, and who cannot therefore be taken separately to live with her father. In support of this argument, I have been referred to In re Parathy Valapptl Moideen : (1913)25MLJ355 and Allah Rakhi v. Karam Ilahi A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 969 and no authority has been cited to the contrary.2. The petition will accordingly be sent back to the Magistrate with a direction, to enquire what is the proper rate of maintenance for the children, and to award them maintenance at that rate....
Tag this Judgment!Kona Adinarayana Vs. Dronavalli Venkata Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad869; (1937)2MLJ653
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property. The contract is dated 4th August, 1930, and the property agreed to be sold thereunder was an extent of 75 cents by seri dry bapat wet land bearing Re-survey No. 276/3 with the paddy crop thereon in the village of Krishnapuram, Kistna District. The sale price was Rs. 1,500. The contract was executed in favour of the first defendant by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 3rd plaintiff represented by the first plaintiff as elder brother and guardian as he was then a minor. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are members of an undivided Hindu family of which the first plaintiff is admittedly the manager. The purpose recited in the contract of sale was to discharge a debt alleged to be due by the family. In pursuance of this contract an advance of Rs. 25 was paid by the first defendant and possession of the property was given over to him on the said date and ever since the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Nachi and ors. Vs. Salamar Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad25
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 700 as and by way of dower settled as payable to her at the lime of her marriage in October 1925 by her deceased husband. The husband died in 1927 and the suit was instituted in 1930 within three years from the date of his death. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the husband did agree to pay the said sum of Rs. 700 as and by way of dower. This cannot be challenged in second appeal. The main defence of the contesting defendants who are the other heirs of her husband was that in a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis in regard to some other claim the plaintiff stated that her husband shortly before his death, while he was very ill, had made provision for her by giving certain immovable properties and also by making a gift of Rs. 3,000 in cash; and therefore the dower debt must be deemed to have been discharged by this gift. It may be noted that the factum ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Renga Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Sri Swamy Alagia Nambirayar Temple, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad270
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit which relates to a Mantapam on the river bank at Tirukarungudi. It was instituted by the plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of the Brahmin Vadagalai Sri Vaishnavite community at Tirukarungudi. The ground assigned for the suit was that the temple of Sri Swami Alagia Nambirayar temple represented by the present Dharmakarta, defendant 1, set up title to the property and asserted that no other body or person has got any right or title thereto and that no person can use the said Mantapam without leave or license obtained from defendant 1. The claim asserted on behalf of the plaintiffs was a title to the Mantapam on behalf of the Vadagalai community not merely for the performance of sandhya, japam and other ceremonies but they have the exclusive right and control thereof and no other person can use the Mantapam without their consent.2. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that this Mantapam has been cons...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Meenakshi Achi and anr. Vs. S.T.L. Rm. Alias K. Rm. Ramaswami Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad785; 173Ind.Cas.671
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by respondent 1 for administration of the estate of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar, the undivided father of minor respondent 2, and the sole question for determination is whether, as contended by the appellants who have obtained decrees against the estate in the hands of respondent 2, a suit for administration is not maintainable. The locus standi of respondent 1, to institute a suit for the administration of the estate, if any, of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar was not disputed and it is common ground that the maintainability or otherwise of the suit depends upon whether or not the joint family properties are or can be deemed to be the estate of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar in the hands of his minor son, respondent 2. It is no doubt true that under the Hindu law, the undivided son or other descendant who succeeds to the joint family property on the death of the ancestor does so by right of survivorship and takes the p...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramasubbier Vs. G. Muhomed Khan Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad823; 173Ind.Cas.705; (1937)2MLJ350
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is in my opinion utterly wrong and cannot be supported. The plaintiff and the defendant own adjacent houses with backyards abutting on each other. A drain has been constructed on the defendant's land, through which the sewage is poured through an opening into the plaintiff's backyard. Somewhere near the drain on the defendant's property stands a latrine. The plaintiff complains that the defendant has no right to pour the filthy matter on his land and prays for an injunction both to restrain him from doing so and to direct the removal of the drain. The finding of both the Courts is, that the drain on the date of the suit was in existence for about thirteen years, and the simple point that arises for decision is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of injunction. The right of throwing filthy water on a neighbour's land is an easement which can be acquired either by grant or under Section 15 of the Easements Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchumarthi Appamma and ors. Vs. Madamanchi Bhujangarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad862; (1937)2MLJ505
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main point argued by Mr. Raghava Rao in this second appeal is whether the suit property can be the subject-matter of a public charitable trust so as to attract the provisions of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. It is a tope inam consisting of 13-78 acres in the village of Paladugu. Both the Courts have taken the view that a public charitable trust was created in respect thereof and framed a scheme in regard thereto. Tope inams are a familiar class of charitable grants made by ancient rulers for the benefit of the public or a section of the public for example, the villagers of a particular locality. The date of the original grant is not known and the grant has not been produced. All that we have in this case is an extract of the fair Inam Register and the inam title issued at the time of the enfranchisement of this inam. A reference to the inam Fair Register shows that the grant was a dharmadayam grant and the grantee was a person known as Anidi Venkata Nara...
Tag this Judgment!Marudamuthu Poosari and anr. Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad653; (1937)2MLJ175
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision Petition arises out of an application made to the lower Court to set aside the dismissal of a petition which had been presented to it under Section 84 of the Religious Endowments Act. The learned District Judge was evidently prepared, so far as the merits of the application went, to hold that there was sufficient cause for restoring the O.P.; but he felt constrained to dismiss the I.A. because he was of opinion that Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, did not apply to the case before him. I think that this view of the learned Judge rests upon a misapprehension.2. It is in a sense right to say that the Religious Endow ments Act is self-contained, that is, that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will not by their own force apply to every enquiry to be conducted by the authorities appointed or constituted under that Act. But when that Act allows suits or applications to be filed in a Civil Court, in relation to matters arising under the Act, the principle ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »