Chennai Court November 1908 Judgments
Avayambal Ammani Vs. Kamalambal Boyee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1097
Pinhey, J.1. The fact that the defendant and his brother were joint does not conclude the question whether the amount in deposit was the separate property of the brother or not. A member of a joint family can acquire separate property.2. It appears to me that the defendant is estopped from contending that the suit debt was joint family property by his application for an heirship certificate.3. Such a certificate might have been required to enable him to recover the insurance money; but there was no need to include the suit debt if he got it by survivorship.4. The Subordinate Judge's view regarding the earnings of a Vakil who has received only a general education at the expense of family funds is opposed to the view of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pauliam Valoo Chetty v. Pauliam Sooraya Chetty 4 I.A. 109; 1 M. 252.5. The Subordinate Judge's decision is not according to law and has caused a failure of justice and must, therefore, be reversed....
Tag this Judgment!Thandavaroya Pillai and anr. Vs. Shunmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.341
1. The plaintiff and the second defendant with their father, the first defendant, form members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff claims possession of Sri Dandaynthapani temple with its endowment or in the alternative to joint possession and management of the same with the first and second defendants. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decree that the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to management in turns of one year each and that he should accordingly be put in possession of the temple and the properties attached thereto in the beginning of Fasli 1316 and he has also directed the defendants to render an account to the plaintiff of their management.2. The defendants appeal from this decree.3. The plaintiff's case is that, on account of certain disputes between the parties, it was decided by certain arbitrators to whom the questions in dispute were referred that, until the disposal of a suit then pending and until a final partition was effected, the family properties should be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›