Chennai Court January 1939 Judgments
Pamidi Vedavalli Thayarammal by Her Power-of-attorney Agent, R. Singan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad744; (1939)2MLJ112
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the owner of a piece of land which was being let to tenants for running a firewood depot from about 1912. It is unnecessary to go into the earlier history of the tenancy. It will be enough to refer to Ex. E, a registered rental agreement executed by two persons V. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and T. Papiah Chetty brother of the respondent, in favour of the appellant on the 30th October, 1922. By that agreement the tenants took over the land which was described as vacant land of the extent of about twomanais, on lease for a period of five years from 1st February, 1923, for opening and running a firewood depot 'after constructing a building on the said land' with the permission of the appellant. The agreement winds up by saying that the appellant should take steps for recovering the property in case of default in the regular payment of rent without reference to the period of the lease. This agreement as is clear, was one which was entered...
Tag this Judgment!The Raja of Vizianagaram (Dead) and anr. Vs. Mudunooru Sanyasiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ114
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the first defendant representing the Vizianagaram Estate against the decision in a suit for an injunction to restrain the first defendant from altering the course of the channel to the detriment of the plaintiff. It seems to be established on the findings of the Courts below that the channel marked DD in the plan attached to the plaint and also in the Commissioner's plan flowing west to east, has been diverted by means of an embankment so that it flows southwards along the path marked EE-1 on the plan and that an incidental consequence of this diversion has been damage to the plaintiff's land which is situated to the west of the diversion. It is contended for the appellant that the duty imposed upon a Zamindar to construct and maintain irrigation works gives him a right to create any new works which he finds to be necessary in the interests of irrigation and imposes an obligation on third parties to construct such protective works as may be n...
Tag this Judgment!Mavila Kuniyedath Koran Alias Kunhamboo Nambiar Vs. Mavila Kuniyedath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad479; (1939)1MLJ604
Wadsworth, J.1. The appeal raises the question of the nature of the interest conferred upon three sisters in a Malabar Marumakkathayam family by reason of the acquisition of properties in their name with funds which have been held to have been supplied by their brother Chandu.2. The appellant is the plaintiff who is the son of one of the sisters who died in 1903. Another sister died childless in the same year. In 1918, the brother Chandu and the surviving sister executed a gift deed in favour of the grandchildren of the surviving sister now represented by defendants 4, 5 and 6. Both the Courts held that the funds by which these properties were acquired were the funds of the brother Chandu and that he intended to create a beneficial interest in favour of his sisters. The trial Court held that the three sisters took the property as tenants-in-common and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to claim one-third share as heir of his mother. The learned Subordinate Judge evolved a theory...
Tag this Judgment!The United Motor Finance Company Vs. Fiat Motors Eastern India Agency
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad699; (1939)2MLJ80
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a plaintiff who has obtained a decree directing an enquiry as to damages is entitled to invoke the aid of Order 21, Rule 41, Civil Procedure Code, in order to enable him to effect an attachment in pursuance of the right given to him under Order 21, Rule 42, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Master took the view that he is not entitled to the benefit of Order 21, Rule 41, Civil Procedure Code. The language of Order 21, Rules 41 and 42 prima facie tends in favour of the said view. The words as in the case of an ordinary decree for the payment of money' in Order 21, Rule 42 would seem to indicate that a decree directing an enquiry as to rent or mesne profits or any other matter, like the one in question, damages, is not a decree for payment of money. But on a close examination of the sections in the light afforded by the history of the sections and the interpretation placed on the corresponding provisions in the prior Codes of...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Goundan and ors. Vs. Ayi Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad465; (1939)1MLJ649
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. In this case, the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Sankari has passed an order under Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code making absolute the preliminary order made by him under Section 133 of that Code. The order relates to the burial of a corpse in a certain place which was alleged by the petitioners in the case and also by the President of the District Board to be a public place. The respondents before the Magistrate who are the petitioners in this Court appeared before the Magistrate in response to the preliminary order which directed them to remove the corpse from the place in question and they contended that the place of burial was in their private possession and also that the burial did not cause annoyance to anybody. In these circumstances, the obvious procedure to follow was that prescribed in Section 139-A of the Code, which was introduced by the amending Act of 1923. Unfortunately, this section seems to have escaped the notice of the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Katragadda Nagayya Vs. Sree Raza Rao Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad529; (1939)2MLJ268
Stodart, J.1. The subject of this second appeal is a sum of Rs. 5-1-0, which was collected under the Estates Land Act from the plaintiff, who is an occupancy tenant in a proprietary estate. This sum was collected by the proprietor on the 23rd October, 1933, and it represents one half of the education tax which the proprietor had to pay in respect of the plaintiff's holding. The plaintiff's suit was under Section 144 of the Estates Land Act to recover back this money from the landholder on the ground that the latter was not legally entitled to collect it from him. Both the trial Court and the learned District Judge on appeal from it have held that the landholder was so entitled and the plaintiff now appeals against that decision. In order to understand how the education tax is assessed and levied it is first necessary to refer to the provisions of the Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920). In that Act provision is made for the collection of a cess which is called a land cess. This cess in prop...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.K. Subramania Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad297
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a case in which the petitioner who was a member of the Panchayat Board of Kaveripakkam and who was appointed temporary president for the purpose of election was charged before the Sub-Magistrate of Arkonam for offences punishable under Section 208(2) and (3), Local Boards Act, in that he continued to exercise the functions of temporary president even after the election of the president and for failure to hand over one pie being the panchayat fund to the newly elected president. It is extraordinary to find that such a complaint was entertained by the Magistrate without any sanction for the prosecution being given by the Local Government as required by law; even an application by the accused to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings in view of the absence of sanction of the Government was dismissed. The Magistrate's view is, in my opinion, wrong as this is a case in which the sanction of the Government was absolutely necessary as a pre-requisite of taking ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Paramasivan Pillai Vs. Thiruvudaya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad636
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by defeated claimants in execution of a decree on a mortgage. The property in question originally belonged to a family consisting of two branches, Karuppaya's branch and Arunagiri's branch. The mortgagors against whom the decree was passed under which the defendant purchased, represented Arunagiri's branch. The plaintiffs claim title under Karuppaya's branch by a series of sale deeds and by the devolution of title to themselves on the death of their father which occurred about five years before these proceedings began. The plaintiffs are brothers. The eldest brother, P.W. 1 is not a party to the suit. After the defendant had purchased the property under the mortgage decree, he applied for delivery and was obstructed by the eldest brother of the plaintiffs, P.W. 1. He then applied to the Court for the removal of their obstruction and the result was an order, Ex. II dated 24th November 1930, whereby it was held that the plaintiffs' brother...
Tag this Judgment!Sadaiammal Vs. Angammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad610; (1939)1MLJ776
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 997 of 1936. The suit was filed by Angammal (the first respondent) to set aside an order made on a claim petition in execution. The plaintiff Angammal was the assignee of a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 8589 of 1925 in which one Venkatachala Naicker was the judgment-debtor. The plaintiff as the assignee decree-holder attached the superstructure, No. 31, Kalmandapam Road, Rayapuram, Madras, as the property of Venkatachala Naicker. Sadayammal, the first defendant in the suit preferred a claim, petition alleging that on the 25th September, 1925, Venkatachala Naicker had sold the superstructure to Vembuli Naicker and that subsequently Vembuli Naicker had died leaving the property to his son who on the 14th December, 1934, sold it to the first defendant, the first defendant being the wife of the original owner, while Vembuli Naicker, the vendee from Venkatachala Naicker is the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Aiyar Vs. Subba Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad678; (1939)1MLJ770
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage, the appellant being the third defendant who claimed priority by, reason of his having discharged a decree on an earlier mortgage. The following are the essential facts : On 26th December, 1917, the first defendant along with one Ramaswami mortgaged 10 items (of which each of the mortgagors owned five) to Janaki for Rs. 300 with interest at 11 1/2 per cent, the deed of mortgage being Ex. I. On 9th September, 1919, the first defendant charged 4 of the 5 items to which he was entitled under a security bond Ex. A in favour of the second defendant in a sum of Rs. 400. This security bond was assigned to the plaintiff under Ex. B in 1927. On 31st August, 1924, the first defendant mortgaged the four items covered by the security bond Ex. A and 14 other items not covered by either of the prior deeds to the third defendant for a sum of Rs. 800 with interest at 15 per cent. The deed, Ex. III, does not refer to the security bond Ex. A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »