Chennai Court August 1943 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. R. Muthurama Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad730
Leach, C.J.1. On 23rd April 1929 the Hindu Religious Endowments Board framed a scheme under Section 57, Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, for the management of the Shri Vridhapureeswaraswami temple, Tiruppanavasal and appointed the appellant the trustee for life. The scheme further provided that the succeeding trustees should be chosen from among his father's descendants. The appellant had spent a large sum of money in repairing the temple. It would appear that he had largely rebuilt it. Before the board settled the scheme the appellant had undertaken to make an annual contribution of Rs. 3000 for the periodical renovation of the temple and had also undertaken to provide a sum of Rs. 25,000 for establishing a thevaram patasala as an adjunct to the temple. The action of the board in making the appellant trustee and creating the office as a hereditary one was challenged in a suit. The District Judge of West Tanjore held that the scheme was invalid. It was improper for the board to fr...
Subbaraya Goundan Vs. O.K. Nachimuthu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad82; (1943)2MLJ434
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant in the appeal was the tenth defendant in a suit on a mortgage executed on the 17th October, 1927, by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The third and fourth defendants obtained a later usufructuary mortgage binding certain portions of the hypotheca. In June, 1929 and June, 1930, there were two sales under money decrees whereby the equity of redemption in the mortgaged properties was lost to the mortgagors (defendants 1 and 2) and passed to persons now represented by defendants 5 to 9. In 1940, that is to say long after Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force, defendants 5 to 9 sold their interest in the properties to the present appellant. It is common ground that the personal remedy against defendants 1 and 2 had become barred before Act IV of 1938 came into force. It is alleged though there is no finding to that effect that the mortgagors (defendants 1 and 2 ) were agriculturists. The purchasers of the equity of redemption (defendants 5 to 9) a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›