Chennai Court September 1937 Judgments
Varadanarayana Aiyangar Vs. Vengu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ613
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent to recover from the appellant and the second and the third respondents her deceased husband's estate. The first respondent is the widow of one Tirumala Aiyangar, who died on the 23rd February, 1921, having made a will four days previously. The appellant and 2nd and 3rd respondents are the executors under the will. By his will the testator directed his widow to adopt his nephew Srinivasan and stated that if Srinivasan's father refused to give his son in adoption she should adopt another boy. The will provided that the executors should remain in possession of the property during the minority of the adopted son, but on his attaining majority they should hand over the estate to him. The will also directed that Rs. 10 a year should be spent on the expenses of his annual ceremony, Rs. 10 towards the expenses of the annual ceremonies of his two deceased wives and a sum of Rs. 3 on the annual cerem...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Pappu Reddi and anr. Vs. Appaji Nayakkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad224
ORDERNewsam, J.1. The correct position, it seems to me, may be thus stated. An alienation of joint family property made by a Hindu father without the consent of the coparceners existing at the time is void able at their instance. Where the only other coparcener in existence besides the father at the time of the alienation is a minor son, the son alone has a right to sue to avoid the alienation of his share of the family property. His right to sue is personal to him, but if his suit is successful, the property is gained back for the family and ensures for the benefit of all future members. If he dies without suing, the property is lost to the family for ever. The question raised in this case is whether such a son's right to sue on behalf of the family can be exercised by a brother born after the alienation but before his own death. I am of opinion that it cannot, for the reason that the right to challenge alienations of family property is and must necessarily be confined to the coparcen...
Tag this Judgment!Sina Thana Navana Nachiappa Chetty Vs. M. Nachiappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.931; (1937)2MLJ902
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the District Magistrate refusing to issue a commission for the examination of a witness in Burma and the sole question for determination is whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to issue the commission. Section 503 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower the District Magistrate to issue a commission for the examination of any witness beyond British India or the territories of any Prince or Chief in India, where there is an officer representing the British Indian Government: vide Empress v. Moorga Chetty 5 Bom. 338 and Emperor v. Corporal Allen 10 Cr.L.J. 571 : 4 Ind. Cas. 400 and it is not disputed that Burma has ceased to be part of British India. The existence of Magistrates in Burma to whom commissions might issue, if permissible, under the Code of Criminal Procedure has no bearing and it follows that the District Magistrate has no power to issue the commission. The Revision petition, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Vythinatha Aiyar Vs. C.V. Varadaraja Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad841; (1938)1MLJ216
Madhavan Nair, J.1. One Varadaraja Aiyar died on the 7th February, 1925, leaving movable and immovable properties worth about Rs. 20,000. The first defendant-appellant is his son, and the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. Varadaraja Aiyar executed two wills, Ex. LX in 1912 and Ex. B in 1922. By the second will he revoked the first one. Under the first will his properties, described as his self-acquisitions and additions therefrom, were given to the first defendant. Under the second, a life interest in half the estate was given to the first defendant while the bulk of his estate was bequeathed to the plaintiff. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to declare that the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to a life interest in two equal shares over the suit properties with a remainder over to the plaintiff and his sons, to call upon the first defendant to render a full account of the entire estate left by the testator and in exclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Sangapu Sangayya and ors. Vs. Pannala Venkatalakshmi Narayana Sastri a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad384; 173Ind.Cas.970; (1938)1MLJ685
Newsam, J.1. I do not see why respondents 2 to 4 should be removed from the record. Under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act the trustee of Sri Maleswaraswami Temple in Guntur town moved the Board to declare the temple an excepted temple. The Board issued notice to all persons interested. The three present petitioners came forward and successfully opposed the trustee's application. The Board held that the temple was non-excepted.2. The trustee moved the District Court under Section 84(2) of the Act to set aside that order and made the present petitioners respondents to his petition.3. A question seems to have arisen in the District Court as to whether the petitioners were necessary parties and the learned District Judge has held that they are not, on the grounds that no relief is asked for against them and the Board may be trusted to support its own order.4. I am of opinion that since petitioners were proper parties in the petition under Section 84 before the Board, they ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijiya Raghunatha Doraisingam Alias Gowri Vallabha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad525; (1938)2MLJ490
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dated 23rd October, 1931, in O.S. No. 10 of 1928. The plaintiff therein was the Zamindar of Sivaganga represented by the Estate Collector, Sivaganga, and he sued for a declaration that only plots I, II and III as marked and described in Sen. A to the plaint and shown in the plaint plan constitute the lands granted on cowle by him to the first defendant on 1st February, 1916, and that the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint are not so included and belong to the plaintiff and that they were wrongly demarcated by the survey authorities as part of the holding of the first defendant. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a correction of the survey register and for recovery of possession of such portions of the lands in Schedule B as had been encroached upon by the defendants after removal of the structures thereon, such portions being particularly marked and shown in Schedule C of the plaint. At ...
Tag this Judgment!Kovalakudi Singam Aiyangar and ors. Vs. K. Kasturiranga Aiyangar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad250; (1937)2MLJ931
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned District Judge has in respect of almost every question of fact decided in favour of the plaintiffs, but has come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable by reason of Clause 3 of Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act II of 1927). The question to be decided in the appeal is, whether the view of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by the provision referred to above, can be sustained.2. The suit has been brought by certain five worshippers in the Sri Ranganathaswami temple at Srirangam with the con sent obtained of the Board of Commissioners. The object of the suit is to get a declaration in respect of a class of persons known as Sukhavasis. The plaintiffs complain that these Sukhavasis have been asserting a claim to a certain fixed share of the Prasadams offered to the deity, and that in assertion of that right, they have gone the length of claiming a cash pay ment in lieu of their share of the Prasadam when that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayimbati Thottathil Narikkot Cheriya Krishnan Nayar Vs. Puthan Peetika ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad263
Horwill, J.1. The appellant usufruotuarily mortgaged certain property to one Moosan, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. On the same day the land was leased back to the appellant; and so the appellant retained possession of the whole of the property mortgaged. Subsequently, be sub-leased a greater portion of the property to defendant 5. The respondents then brought a suit to evict the appellant from the suit plot, whereupon the appellant put in an application Under Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act, to purchase the landlord's right in the property in his occupation. The trial Court found that all the requirements of Section 33 had been satisfied and allowed the petition. In appeal the District Judge felt that the Legislature could not have intended enabling a mortgagor, in circumstances like the present, to avoid his mortgage by a transaction of this kind and that Section 33 was intended to protect tenants, who had long been in possession and had been forced to construct houses ...
Tag this Judgment!Alam Khan Sahib Vs. A.L.M. Karuppannaswami Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad415; (1938)1MLJ113
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises two important questions, first as to limitation and adverse possession in suits by trustees of religious institutions and secondly, as to a presumption in support of titles from long enjoyment. The suit has been brought for the recovery of nearly 60 items of immovable property from about as many defendants. The plaintiff (the appellant) claims them as the present trustee of an institution known as the Bairam Khan Thaikkal. The lower Court has upheld the plaintiff's contention that there was a valid wakf and that the gift of the lands, by whomsoever made, was confirmed in 1865 after the inam inquiry. The original trustee was said to be a holy saint, an ancestor of, the plaintiff, who may be called Bairam Khan I. Nothing is known of the subsequent history of the Thaikkal till the trusteeship was assumed by Bairam Khan II, the father of the plaintiff. He was a long-lived man, who after alienating the bulk of the trust property, died in the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Pothukutchi Appa Rao and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad193; (1938)2MLJ434
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the tank-bed lands in question are the property of the Agraharamdars (the plaintiffs) or the Government (the defendant). The suit has been filed with a view to get a declaration that the lands belong to the Agraharamdars, and to get a refund of the penal assessment, alleged to have been wrongly levied from them. The plaintiffs trace their title to a confirmatory grant in their favour of 1797, made by the then Zemindar of Narasaraopet (Ex. A). This refers to a yet earlier grant of an unknown date (not forthcoming) and the plaintiffs rely upon the recital in Ex. A, wide and unqualified, to the effect that the whole village is granted 'inclusive of the hills, channels, saline lands, donkas, tank-bed lands' within the boundaries specified. It will be seen that there is in this grant a specific mention of the tank-bed lands, which are expressly conveyed. The Agraharamdars next rely upon a conveyance of 1844, under which th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »