Chennai Court August 1910 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.
Rajagopala Reddi Vs. Nathu Govinda Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ445
1. This is a suit by a reversioner to the estate of one Ramaswami Reddi (deceased) for a declaration that an alleged adoption by Ramaswamy's widow (the 2nd defendant) of the 1st defendant is invalid. In his plaint the plaintiff alleges that Ramaswami died leaving him surviving his mother, the 3rd defendant (a widow), his widow (the 2nd defendant), and no issue male or female. He further alleges that the 3rd defendant is the nearest reversioner to the estate of the deceased Ramaswami, and that he (the plaintiff) is next in grade to her. These allegations are not denied in the written statements of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st defendant admits that the plaintiff is a dayadi of the deceased Ramaswami. The 3rd defendant does not defend the suit.2. The first question for consideration is whether the District judge was right in holding that the onus of establishing the adoption is on the defence. It is common ground that the plaintiff is entitled to sue for a declaration and that he i...
iburamsa Rowthan and anr. Vs. Thirdmalai Muthuveera theruvenkatasami N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad269
1. The facts are sufficiently set out in the order of reference. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them here. We may begin with the proposition that a member of an undivided Hindu family cannot enforce a partial partition against the other members of the family. That is not disputed. The next proposition which is also beyond question is that a stranger purchasing the interest of one or more members of the family in certain items of family property cannot enforce a partition of those items only against the will of the other members without suing for a general partition of the entire family property. The principle of this rule is that there may be equities which those other members have against the vendor of the plaintiff which can only be worked out in a general suit for partition and in working out those equities the plaintiff's vendor and hence the plaintiff may be assigned a different item from the items he purported to buy or even a smaller share than those items represented. We com...
Rajagopala Reddy Vs. Nattu Govinda Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad329
1. This is a suit by a reversioner to the estate of one Ramasami Reddy deceased for a declaration that an alleged adoption by Ramasawmy's widow (the second defendant) of the first defendant is invalid. In his plaint the plaintiff alleges that Ramasawmy died leaving him surviving his mother, the third defendant (a widow), his widow (the second defendant), and no issue male or female. Ha farther alleges that the third defendant is the nearest; reversioner to the estate of the deceased Ramasawmy, and that he (the plaintiff) is next in grade to her. These allegations are not denied in the written statements of the first and second defendants. The first defendant admits that the plaintiff is a dayadi of the deceased Ramasawmy. The third defendant does not defend the suit.2. The first question for consideration is whether the District Judge was right in holding that the onus of establishing the adoption lay on the defence. It is common ground that the plaintiff is entitled to sue for a decla...
Raja Gopala Reddy Vs. Nathu Govinda Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.342
1. This is a suit by a reversioner to the estate of one Ramasamy Reddy (deceased) for a declaration that an alleged adoption by Ramasamy's widow (the 2nd defendant) of the 1st defendant is invalid. In his plaint the plaintiff alleges that Ramasamy died leaving him surviving his mother, the 3rd defendant (a widow), his widow (the 2nd defendant, and no issue male or female. He further alleges that the 3rd defendant is the nearest reversioner to the estate of the deceased Ramasamy, and that he (the plaintiff) is next in grade to her. These allegations are not denied in the written statements of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st defendant admits that the plaintiff is a dayadi of the deceased Ramasamy. The 3rd defendant does not defend the suit.2. The first question for consideration is whether the District Judge was right in holding that the onus of establishing the adoption lay on the defence. It is common ground that the plaintiff is entitled to sue for a declaration and that he is not...
iburamsa Rowthan and ors. Vs. Thirumalai Muthuveera Thiruvenkatasami N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.559
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. The facts are sufficiently set out in the order of reference. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them here. We may begin with the proposition that a member of an undivided Hindu family cannot enforce a partial partition against the other members of the family. That is not disputed. The next proposition which is also beyond question is that a stranger purchasing the interest of one or more members of the family in certain items of family property, cannot enforce a partition of these items only, against the will of the other members' without suing for a general partition of the entire family property. The principle of this rule is that there may be equities which those other members have against the vendor of the plaintiff, which can only be worked out in a general suit for partition, and in working out those equities, the plaintiff's vendor, and hence the plaintiff may be assigned a different item from the item he purported to buy, or even a smaller share than th...
Pattath Manakkal Narayanan Somayajipad Vs. Kannanoor Kanisaka Manakkal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.853
1. The first contention is that accounts for 1077 and 1078 were settled between the plaintiff and the 1st to 3rd defendants and the plaintiff was paid what was due to him.2. The fact that the plaintiff did not seek in the plaint to re-open an account settled for those years alleging error or fraud, but alleged that he had received nothing at all for those years is the basis of this contention. He is not, it is claimed, entitled to question the correctness of the amount which the Courts find he received for those years. But the 1st defendant, himself both in his written statement and in his evidence, alleged that he had not rendered any accounts to the plaintiff and was not liable to do so ; and it is impossible for us, in the face of those statements, to hold that there was an account rendered and settled. The District Munsif finds the plaintiff precluded from questioning the result, because he had accepted payment after hearing the accounts read; that is hardly a finding that accounts...
Muthu Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ramalinga Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.870
1. It is found by the District Judge that the lands were held by the plaintiff for the japam service and he had no hereditary right to them. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 justify the plaintiff's dismissal on the ground of his failure to perform ser-vice. The Judge finds that there was no substantial failure to perform japam subsequent to the dismissal. He does not consider the defendants' case which is accepted by the Munsif that there was failure to perform the japam service for three years or more. If the lands had been granted to the plaintiff to be enjoyed for the japam service alone, long continued failure to perform it must rightly entail dismissal.2. The District Judge must return a finding on the evidence on record on the question.Whether the plaintiff defaulted to perform the japam service and whether ho was rightly dismissed for such default? 3. The defendants ask us to say that they are entitled to dismiss the plaintiff without assigning any reason. But we decline to consider this...
Burle Jagganna and ors. Vs. Yelugula Latchanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.871
1. There is nothing in the mortgage deed which debars the mortgagor of his right to redeem until the debt is satisfied by enjoyment of the profits of the land.2. The plaintiffs must, therefore, get a decree for redemption of the half of the land of which the mortgagee took possession under the mortgage ; but to enable us to give him this decree, we must have findings on the 8th and 12th issues.3. The findings should be submitted within six weeks from this date and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.4. In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge submitted the followingFINDINGS1. The High Court having in S.A. No. 1446 of 1907 called for findings from this Court on the 8th and 12th issues in the suit, I proceed to record the following findings.2. 8th Issue : The assignments referred to in this issue are those covered by Exhibits F and II. By Exhibit F dated 10th December 1886, the original mortgagee, D. Pedda Somayya, transferred his interest in the mortgage de...
Shiev Gowda Vs. C.S. Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ391
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, and whether there have been reciprocal demands between the parties within the meaning of Article 85 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act. If so, the defendant's plea of limitation fails. If not, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in respect of items in the account prior in date to three years before the institution of the suit.2. The District Judge held that Article 85 applied and the suit was not barred by limitation, apparently on the ground that the accounts had been open and running for many years. He does not seem to have considered the question with reference to the words of the article 'where there have been reciprocal demands between the patties.' The oral evidence affords little assistance as to the course of business between the parties and we have to rely in the main on the plaintiffs' accounts. The plaint...
Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar Vs. Veerabhadra Pillai Alias Rangaratnam Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ928
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit to recover a temple office which is alleged to be hereditary in the plaintiff's family and which was purchased at a court-auction by the defendant in execution of a decree against a previous holder of the office. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the lower appellate court on the ground that the office was erne of personal service and that the attachment and sale were bad as opposed to Section 266(f)of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is now contended that such a suit is barred by the operation of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code and should have been dismissed. It is well settled that as between the judgment debtor and the decree-holder, this is an objection which can only, be taken in execution and it is also well settled that the provisions of Section 244 prohibit a suit by a party or his representatives against An auction-purchaser to raise a question which, as between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder, must have been determined under that s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »