Chennai Court May 1890 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.
Nunnu Meah Vs. Krishnasawmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad274
1. The only two questions argued before us on the hearing of this appeal were (1) whether defendant's vendor, Thayammal, took under the will of her husband, G. Veerasawmi Chetti, an absolute estate in the house in question in this suit or only a widow's estate; and (2) whether plaintiff is bound to make good to defendant any and what sum for repairs and improvements alleged to have been made to the house by defendant.2. As to (1) it is argued by the learned Counsel for appellant that the restriction upon the power of alienation by a Hindu wife of immoveable property given to her by her husband as stridhanam has no application to gifts to a widow by will, that in the case of a gift by will, therefore, unless there are express words of limitation, the widow takes an absolute estate, and that in this case there were no words limiting the gift, and, therefore, Thayammal took an absolute estate. In support of the distinction contended for between a gift by a husband to his wife inter vivos ...
Eales Vs. Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad386
1. In answer to the question referred by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, we are of opinion that a sufficient notice within the meaning of Section 433 of Act I of 1884 has been given.2. Two objections have been taken to the notice which is said to be conveyed by two letters marked G and J, the first objection being that the cause of action was not explicitly stated and the second that the abode of the plaintiff was not sufficiently described. With regard to the first objection, we have felt no doubt that it was not maintainable for the cause of action is stated with sufficient clearness in the second of the two letters.3. The other objection presents more difficulty, for the only address given in Mr. Eales' letter is 'Madras,' and it is only by reading his letter with the letter of his solicitors that any complete notice stating the plaintiff's abode is made out.4. The latter letter refers to Mr. Eales' letter, and we think that they must be read together. It was argued that, ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›