Chennai Court January 1906 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.
Subbaroyadu Vs. Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad329
ORDER1. The object of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act is to enable the Small Cause Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in a small cause suit, when the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immoveable property or other title which the Small Cause Court cannot finally determine, and to return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. The exercise of the power is discretionary with the Small Cause Court, and when it is exercised the effect is to give the Court's jurisdiction to try the small cause suit as an original suit notwithstanding anything in Section 16 of the Act Muhamaya Dasya v. Nitya Hari Das Bairagi I.L.R. 23 Cale. 425. The District Munsif must therefore receive the plaint and deal with it according to law....
Camani Vs. the Administrator-general of Madras and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad290
1. The question we have to decide is whether the funeral and testamentary expenses of Mrs. Barefoot should be paid out of the legacy bequeathed by her to her daughter, or out of Mrs. Barefoot's residuary estate. By her will Mrs. Barefoot directed that these expenses should be paid out of the legacy' At the time she made her will she was unaware that she was entitled to a sum of Rs. 38,000 being her share of a bequest to her son James Barefoot by her husband under his will which bequest was subsequently held to be void by reason of James having attested his father's will. The rule as laid down in Theobald on 'Wills' is as follows:It would seem, that if no disposition of the residuary estate is attempted, the proper inference is, that the specific fund is onerated for the benefit of the next of kin, and that it and not the residue undisposed of is the primary fund for payment of debts and legacies. See Milnes v. Slater 8 Ves. 295, Dacre v. Patrickson 1 Dr. & Sm. 186, In re Grainger; Daws...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›