Chennai Court March 1939 Judgments
Jonnala Lakshmidevamma Vs. Jonnala Veera Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad781; (1939)2MLJ340
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to a Hindu widow's right to maintenance out of the family properties after partition has taken place. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit out of which the appeal arises. Her husband died some eight years before the suit. At the time of his death the joint family consisted of the first respondent (the appellant's father-in-law), the second respondent (her brother-in-law), and the third respondent (a son of her deceased husband by a previous wife). On the 20th December, 1925, the appellant made a formal demand for maintenance. The family was still joint, but on the 17th March, 1926, a partition was effected by a registered deed. The partition was no doubt the result of the appellant's demand, but it was a genuine partition. On the death of the appellant's husband his share in the family properties devolved upon the third respondent and as the result of the partition the third respondent obtained what his ...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. His Holi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad801; (1939)2MLJ395
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal by the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, from the decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 18th February, 1935, in O.S. Mo. 5 of 1934, a suit by the trustee of Sri Virupakshaswaraswami, etc., temples at Hampi in Hospet taluk against the Board for cancelling or modifying a certain scheme framed by the Board on the 4th August, 1933. It was alleged in the plaint that the Board had no power to frame the scheme and that in any case there was no justification for the framing of a scheme. This formed the subject-matter of the first issue in the suit. That allegation, however, was withdrawn at the trial and the Court below has found that a scheme was necessary and the need for a scheme is not now questioned before us on behalf of the respondent.2. The appeal relates to two matters, namely, the appointment of additional or associate trustees provided in the scheme and the appointment of a manager by the Board and the allotme...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Markapuram Pedda Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad469; (1939)1MLJ899
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was charged before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamadugu under Section 29 of the Indian Telegraphs Act for causing a false message to be transmitted from Cudappah and his objection to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamdugu to try the case was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The records were then submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the District Magistrate and the case was transferred by the District Magistrate to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cudappah who has jurisdiction. This as held in Sikka Goundan, In re A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 326, is not permissible and the order of transfer cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the case is re-transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamadugu for disposal according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Budhiraju Seethayamma (Deaceased) and ors. Vs. Vullipalam Alias Putrev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad802; (1939)2MLJ600
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether a vested remainder which was vested in one Lakshminarayana Rao was conveyed by his wife Bhramaramba (seventh defendant) under a sale-deed Ex. C in favour of the first defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge answered it in the negative and against this decision of the Subordinate Judge the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. One Kanchamma was the last owner of the suit property. She made a will in 1899 in and by which she bequeathed all the properties she was possessed of, including the suit property, to the said Lakshminarayana Rao who was her brother's son and to one Lakshmi Narasamma, her widowed daughter. By her will she directed Lakshminarayana Rao to divide the movable and immovable property which she was possessed of into two shares and to enjoy one half share, the other half share to be enjoyed during her lifetime by Lakshmi Narasamma. The said Kanchamma fu...
Tag this Judgment!Patayath Parumpayil Sankara Menon Vs. Karumathil Puthumanae Sanku's so ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad639
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The plaintiff who is the appellant sued to redeem a Malabar kanom mortgage executed in the month Dhanu of the Malabar year 1034, impleading defendant 1 in his personal capacity as the mortgagee. Some time after the filing of the suit, defendant 1 having contended that possession pertained not to him personally but to an unincorporated association of which he was a member, an application to amend the plaint was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to sue defendant 1 as representing the association of which he was a member. No objection was taken to this amendment and nothing was said by the learned Judge at the time about the effect which the amendment would have on any plea of limitation.2. Two questions have been raised. The first relates to the position without regard to the complication caused by impleading defendant 1 in his representative capacity. The suit was filed on 16th December 1930 and, if the suit mortgage was...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhakkepat Palat, deceased Lakshmi Kutty Amma's daughter Kunhilakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad799; (1939)2MLJ287
Pandrang Row, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether after a Marumakkathayam tarwad has been registered as impartible under Section 43 of Marumakkathayam Act (XXII of 1932), a tavazhi of that tarwad which possesses separate properties is not governed by the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act which permits a partition of such properties as if the tavazhi were a tarwad - vide Section 41 of the Act. It is clear from the Chapters V and VI that in the case of tavazhies possessing separate properties, the provisions of the two Chapters are made applicable to such tavazhies as if they were tarwads - vide Sections 37 and 41 of the Act, and the reason is obvious because where there are separate properties belonging to a tavazhi, so far as the management of the properties and their partition is concerned, there is no reason for making any difference between tavazhies possessing separate properties and tarwads. Section 41 runs as follows:The provisions of this chapter shall ap...
Tag this Judgment!Gaja Gopi Reddi, Minor by Guardian and Mother Seshamma Vs. Pulla Rami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad500; (1939)1MLJ888
Newsam, J.1. The facts are these. The judgment-debtor was a joint family. The father and manager of the joint family filed a petition tinder Section 20 of the Act and obtained stay of execution, but failed to file an application under Section 19 (for scaling down the debt) within 60 days. Later on his minor son, represented by his mother, filed applications under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, which have been dismissed.2. The question arises whether every member of a joint family can file a petition under Sections 19 and 20 or any member. The word used in Section 19 is any member and that must obviously be so, for it is a concession to joint families that any member entitled to relief may apply for stay and scaling down. The concession is not that every member of the family in Succession may obtain 60 days' stay. Obviously the joint family is bound by any order passed on the application of any member, or by any default committed by any member. I dismiss this petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Padmasani Bai Vs. Sabapathy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ284
Somayya, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration of her right to light and air to a room in her house, which she was using as a kitchen. She complained that the window through which she was getting light and air was threatened to be obstructed by a construction which the defendant proposes to put up in his own house. The defendant denied the easement right claimed by the plaintiff. Two issues were raised:(1) Has this window been therefor the statutory period? (2) If so, will the proposed construction of defendant, have the effect of diminishing the flow of light and air to such an extent as to entitle the plaintiff to the injunction claimed?2. There was only one witness examined at the trial and that is the plaintiff. She gave evidence that the window has been there at least from 1909 when she purchased the property. She also said that that is the only window on the southern side and if it is closed there will be no light an...
Tag this Judgment!The Trichinopoly Varthaga Sangam, Limited, by Its Secretary A. Arulana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad769; (1939)2MLJ345
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly to enforce a mortgage executed by three brothers, Nataraja, Nilamegham and Manickavachagam Pillai, sons of one Chockalingam Pillai. Chockalingam had five sons, the other two being named Chandrasekharam and Muthuvelu respectively. The family was joint until the 30th January, 1919, when Chockalingam and his sons executed a deed of partition. The deed provided that three houses (which had been used as the family residence) should be held by the members of the family as tenants in common, but no member should have the right to dispose of his share to a stranger. Chockalingam and Muthuvelu died shortly after the execution of the deed. On the 20th August, 1925, Nataraja, Nilamegham, Chandrasekharam and Manickavachagam on behalf of themselves and their respective sons executed in favour of the appellant a mortgage of the three houses to secure a loan of Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Vudaru Pedda Pulla Reddi Vs. Peddugari Chinna Venkata Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad667; (1939)2MLJ356
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. The question whether the appellants in A.S. No. 37 of 1936 should have been asked to state the amount of future mesne profits claimed by them and to pay court-fee thereon has come up before me for decision in consequence of a difference between the Court-Fee Examiner and the learned District Judge of Kurnool.2. A suit for partition and possession (O.S. No. 203 of 1928) which also included a prayer for the grant of future mesne profits, was instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of the District Munsif at Kurnool. It was decided in their favour and a preliminary decree was passed on the 30th July, 1931; but the question of future mesne profits was ordered by the District Munsif to be left open. The property was partitioned and the partition was followed by a final decree. This was passed on the 15th January, 1932. After the plaintiffs had obtained possession in the execution of this decree, they applied to the Court on the 30th July, 1934, asking for an enquiry...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »