Chennai Court December 1946 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.
Sivakami Ammal Vs. C. Ganapathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ390
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was to set aside the order passed by the District Munsiff, Madura Town, In E.A. No. 887 of 1943, which was an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are not in dispute but it is necessary to state them to appreciate the contention of the parties in this appeal. The subject-matter of the suit is a house in Madura Town which was owned by the 2nd defendant who is the husband of the plaintiff. The Madura Municipality sued the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 396 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Madura Town and obtained a decree. That suit was to enforce the statutory charge in respect of the arrears of property tax for the years 1931 to 1933. Though the decree was obtained in 1934 the house was brought to sale only on 21st October, 1940 and the plaintiff became the purchaser at the Court sale. A sale certificate was issued to her on 28th November, 1940. Mea...
Sivakami Ammal Vs. C. Ganpathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad120
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was to set aside the order passed by the District Munsif, Madura Town, in E.A. No. 887 of 1943, which was an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P.C. The facts are not in dispute but it is necessary to state them to appreciate the contention of the parties in this appeal. The subject-matter of the suit is a house in Madura Town which was owned by defendant 2, who is the husband of the plaintiff. The Madura Municipality sued defendant 2, in O.S. No. 39G of 1034 on the file of the District Munsit's Court of Madura Town and obtained a decree. That suit was to enforce the statutory charge in respect of the arrears of property tax for the years 1931 to 193a. Though the decree was obtained in 1934 the house was brought to sale only on 21-10-1940 and the plaintiff became the purchaser at the court sale. A sale certificate was issued to her on 28-11-1940. Meanwhile the municipality had brought another suit ...
D. Shanmugha Raja, Proprietor of Sivaganga Estate, Being Minor, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad363; (1947)1MLJ113
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant is the proprietor of the Sivaganga Estate represented by his manager. He sued for a declaration that the property, described in the schedule to the plaint, situated in Oorawayal village belonged to him and was in his enjoyment, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon its limits and cutting off the trees therein and for damages and other reliefs. He alleged that the village was situate in his estate and that the tank and forest of the village belonged to the estate. In paragraph 6 of his plaint, he alleged that the property described in the plaint schedule had been declared by the Government to be a ' Reserved Forest' and that the Zamindar for Sivaganga had been appointed Forest Officer in respect of the said forest. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and also took objection to the maintainability of the suit. This latter plea was contained in paragraph 11 of their written statement which ru...
K.C. Valayudhan Vs. P.R. Raman Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad307; (1947)1MLJ150
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner was the first accused in C.C. No. 1415 of 1945 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Palghat. He was along with six others charged under Section 430, Indian Penal Code, for causing mischief by digging a channel in a certain plot of land and wrongfully diverting water from the respondent's wet lands. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the trying Magistrate discharged accused 1 and 6 and framed charges against the remaining accused. Against the order discharging the petitioner (first accused), an application was filed in the Sessions Court, South Malabar, by the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge so far as the petitioner is concerned and directed further enquiry. The present revision petition has been filed against that order.2. The sole ground on which the further enquiry has been ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is that in a petition dated 3rd December, 1945, sent by the petitioner to the Sub...
Murkothkandiyil Muyyarikkandi Kalander and ors. Vs. Thattantavita Vata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad273; (1947)1MLJ112
Horwill, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the lower Court was right in valuing the parambas which were the subject of the suit under Section 7, Clause (v)(b) of the Court-Fees Act and calculating the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction on the half share of the suit properties comprising parambas, building, garden, etc., claimed by the plaintiffs.2. The main question is whether jurisdiction should be determined by valuing the whole of the plaint schedule properties or only the half share which the plaintiffs claim as theirs.3. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act says:Where a suit relates to land or an interest in land...the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by rules under Section 3. It is clear from this section that for purposes of jurisdiction it is the plaintiffs' interest in the property that must be valued. The plaintiffs' suit was f...
K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. Sri Varaguna Pandia Chinnathambiar Avergal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad457; (1947)1MLJ173
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. Mr. K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar, a leading advocate of Madura, was engaged by the Zamindar of Sivagiri to defend O.S. No. 3 of 1928, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tinnevelly, in which the Zamindar was the defendant. Ex. P.3 is a memo regarding settlement of fees at Rs. 2,800 and it is dated 18th November, 1935. This sum was made up in the following manner: Rs.500 was balance due up to that date, Rs. 800 was the balance due in respect of a fee of Rs. 1,500 settled for filing a legal representative petition and Rs. 1,500 was the amount then settled for conducting the case from that day till its final disposal, inclusive of the fees for commission enquiry, if any, which may be held at Madras. When the advocate claimed Rs. 3,222 as due to him, a reply was sent to him by the Dewan (Exhibit D-1) on 9th September, 1936, pointing out that that only Rs. 2,000 was due. The advocate wrote to the Dewan Exhibit D-2 on 13th September, 1936, that he had heard from the junior vak...
Tayi Narasimha Rao, Executive Officer and anr. Vs. Pasupaleti Suranna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad334; (1947)1MLJ117
Bell, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision given by the District Judge of West Godavari in O.S. No. 8 of 1944. That suit purported to be filed under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and related to the property of the Malleswaraswami temple at Relangi. This temple was notified by Government under Chapter VI-A of the Act and the first plaintiff was duly appointed the executive officer. Later, after the suit was filed, he was replaced by the second plaintiff. The defendants are said to be in possession of the temple lands and to have been at one time prior to the appointment of the plaintiffs de facto if not de jure trustees of the temple.2. The plaint asks that the entire interest in the suit land--the properties of the temple--should be declared to be the endowment of the temple and be vested in the plaintiffs. Next the plaintiffs ask for an account of the income of the property and of the expenses incurred by the defendants for the yearly kalyanam and that t...
P.A.R. Chandrasekhara Nadar and ors. Vs. I. Palaniappa Chettiar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ134
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide what are the rights of a secured creditor of an insolvent when the adjudication has been annulled as the result of the Court having sanctioned a composition, the creditor not being a party to the arrangement and having taken no steps to realize his security before the annulment.2. On the 19th October, 1937, the first defendant in the suit out of which the appeal arises executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 3,000. The first defendant at that time was joint with his four sons (defendants 2 to 5), all of whom are minors. As security for the advance the first defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff what has been described as a continuing security bond. The properties covered by the bond formed part of the family estate. On the 17th December, 1937, two creditors applied to the Subordinate Court of Madura for the adjudication of the first defendant under the provisions of the Pro...
The Sri Arumughanainar Koil Devasthanam Vs. Kandasami Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad313; (1947)1MLJ139
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties with past mesne profits. The properties in question admittedly belong to a Devastanam of which the Zamindar of Sivagiri is the trustee. On 21st November, 1940, the Court of Wards, by an order under Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act, took over the superintendence of the Sivagiri estate, and on 28th January, 1941, a notification was issued to the effect that the superintendence of the trust properties had been taken over by the Court of Wards and the management entrusted to its manager. The properties now in suit were in 1933 held under a lease which was to terminate in two years' time. On 14th January, 1938, the respondent submitted a petition (Ex. P-1) to the Zamindar in which he prayed for the grant of a lease in respect of the suit lands, described as Arumugha Nayinarkoil Manibam lands for seven years, from fasli 1350 to fasli 1356 at a rental of Rs. 580 per annum, the petiti...
Krishnan Chettiar Vs. Minor Lakshmanan Chettiar, by Mother and Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ270
Rajamannar, J.1. The second respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1941 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, against the appellant and his father on 23rd July, 1941. Some time subsequent to the decree the appellant's father died. In August, 1941, there was an agreement between the decree-holder and the appellant that the decree debt might be discharged in two instatements. On 12th June, 1942, the first instatement was paid but the second instatement was not paid on the due date. On 24th August, 1943, a sum of Rs. 600 was paid.2. On 27th March, 1945, the minor son of the second respondent (who is the first respondent before us) filed E.P. No. 43 of 1945 for realising the balance due under the decree. He based his claim on a registered deed of partition dated 28th December, 1944, entered into between his father, the second respondent, and himself, represented by his next friend, under which the decree debt in question was allotted to him. The appellant obj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›