Subramania Aiyar Vs. S.A. Subramania Aiyar and ors.

Subramania Aiyar vs S.A. Subramania Aiyar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 10, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/775972

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/775972
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Jan 10, 1908
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subramania Aiyar

Respondent

S.A. Subramania Aiyar and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Annaji Rau v. Ragubat
Reported In: (1908)18MLJ245

Excerpt

- 1. as regards the question of interest we think the appellants were not entitled to any interest before the filing of the plaint as there was no agreement to pay interest and no demand in writing to bring the case within the provisions of the interest act. on this point, we are not prepared to differ from the decision in kamalammal v. peeru meet a levvai rowthen i.l.r. (1897) m. 481. as regards the recent case of saunadanappa v. shivbasawa i.l.r. (1907) b. 354 which awarded interest on the ground that the parties were hindus and that it was according to hindu usage to pay interest in such cases, it has been settled in this court, ever since the case of annaji rau v. ragubat (1871) 6 m.h.c.r. 400 that hindu law is not binding in such matters as the payment of interest.2. the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. As regards the question of interest we think the appellants were not entitled to any interest before the filing of the plaint as there was no agreement to pay interest and no demand in writing to bring the case within the provisions of the Interest Act. On this point, we are not prepared to differ from the decision in Kamalammal v. Peeru Meet a Levvai Rowthen I.L.R. (1897) M. 481. As regards the recent case of Saunadanappa v. Shivbasawa I.L.R. (1907) B. 354 which awarded interest on the ground that the parties were Hindus and that it was according to Hindu usage to pay interest in such cases, it has been settled in this Court, ever since the case of Annaji Rau v. Ragubat (1871) 6 M.H.C.R. 400 that Hindu law is not binding in such matters as the payment of interest.

2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Subramania Aiyar vs S.A. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Same Subject Family

Family In writing Hindu Law Has been