Chennai Court April 1914 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.
Ramalingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthayyan, Minor, by Guardian Arunachal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad6; 24Ind.Cas.356; (1914)26MLJ528
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiff is a minor and claims in effect to have a conveyance, Exhibit I, set aside. Exhibit I is dated 20th August 1906. Under it, the plaintiffs' father purported to convey the whole of certain ancestral property to defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. At the date of Exhibit I, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's father were jointly interested in the property. The question whether or not Exhibit I is binding upon the plaintiffs share in the property depends upon whether the purpose for which it was executed is a purpose binding upon minor members of the joint family. That purpose was to raise funds for 'the fees and other expenses' for the defence of the plaintiff's father against charges under the Indian Penal Code, Section 232 (counterfeiting the King's coin).2. Beni Ram v. Man Singh I.L.R. (1911) All. 4 is relied upon for showing that the purpose above referred to is a legal necessity: it is argued that in that case the prosecution ended in a conviction and yet it was he...
Ratna Chetti (Died) and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ616
1. One Govinda Chetty executed a will on the 20th December 1877 and died subsequently. It purports to be in favor of his widow and his nephew and son-in-law Muthu Arunachalla Chetty. The latter died in March 1878 : the 2nd defendant is his widow and the third, his widowed daughter. On the 13th December 1908, Sengalani Amrnal, the widow of Govinda Chetty executed a will. She died since. Plaintiffs are reversioners to the estate of Muthu Arunachella Chetty, They sue for a declaration that Sengalani was not competent to dispose of the plaint property by her will, that Muthu Arunachella Chetty had a vested interest in it at the time of his death and that they are entitled to succeed to the estate after the life time of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The District Judge held that Muthu Arunachella Chetty had no vested interest in the property covered by the will, and that the discretionary relief of declaration should not be granted in this case, as the plaintiffs can succeed, if at all, only a...
Krishna Rao Alias A. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Aiyasami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad12; (1914)27MLJ138
1. This appeal arises out of an unfortunate litigation. The matter has been before the Courts now four times and this is the fifth time that the questions have been considered judicially, and yet the questions in themselves are neither abstruse nor of unusual difficulty. They are whether two documents Exhibits I and VI are binding on the plaintiff. These documents were executed by the guardian of the plaintiff when he was a minor. He has now attained majority. His guardian is dead. The guardian was the plaintiff's natural father and had been appointed the testamentary guardian of the plaintiff by his adoptive father. That he was an affectionate father and guardian to the plaintiff is stated by the learned Judge and has not been denied before us.2. Exhibits I and VI purport to have been executed for a total consideration of Rs. 1,575 each. The Munsif in the first instance found that they were valid to the extent of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 respectively. On appeal the Subordinate Judge uphe...
M. Kullappa Chetty Vs. P.V. Subbaraya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.22
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. I agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement with reference to commission on which he relied, but I find myself unable to agree with him with reference to the date on which the partnership must be deemed to have come to an end. The plaintiff's case is that the partnership came to an end in September 1908. The defendant's case is that it continued till May 1909. The learned Judge held that the partnership continued until May 1909 and directed that the partnership accounts should be taken up to that date. The partnership was admittedly a partnership-at-will and consequently Section 253 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides that any partner may retire from such a partnership at any time, is applicable. The Judge found that the defendant decided to retire from the partnership in September 1908. His finding is in these words: 'he'--that is the plaintiff--'has given evidence--uncontradicted evidence--which does point, no do...
Nagarampallikanesam Vs. Nagarampalli Batchamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.257
1. We think that the cause of action on which this suit was brought, as we read the plaint, was based on the fact that the 2nd defendant was adopted by the 1st defendant without due authority as the alleged authority of the sapindas other than the plaintiff, which was relied on by the widow (1st defendant), being alleged to be invalid under the rules of Hindu Law.2. Now that the 2nd defendant is dead and that the 1st defendant is at present (whether we take the view contended for by the plaintiff or that contended for on behalf of the late 2nd defendant) a female heir owning a limited interest, the question of the validity of the adoption of the second defendant has to be decided merely for the purpose of considering whether the order as to costs made by the lower Court so far as that order is in favour of the 1st defendant in her individual right is supportable.3. After hearing the appellant's learned Counsel we see no sufficient reason to accept his contention that the authority, Exh...
Ratna Chettear and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.796
1. One Govinda Chetty executed a Will on the 20th December 1877 and died subsequently. It purports to be in favour of his widow and his nephew and son-in-law, Muthu Arunachella Chetty. The latter died in March 1878 : the 2nd defendant is his widow and the 3rd his widowed daughter. On the 13th December 1908, Sangalani Ammal, the widow of Govinda Chetty, executed a Will. She has died since. Plaintiffs are reversioners to the estate of Muthu Arunachella Chetty. They sue for a declaration that Sengalani was not competent to dispose of the plaint property by her Will, that Muthu Arunachella Chetty had a vested interest in it at the time of his death and that they are entitled to succeed to the estate after the lifetime of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The District Judge held that Muthu Arunachella Chetty had no vested interest in the property covered by the Will, and that the discretionary relief of declaration should not be granted in this case, as the plaintiffs can succeed, if at all, only...
Thoppulan Vs. Sankaranarayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad61(1); 24Ind.Cas.176
ORDERTyabji, J.1. It seems clear to me that the conviction for theft cannot stand. This had to be more or less conceded by the learned Pleader for the complainant and the Public Prosecutor. The facts found are that the trees were in the possession of the 9th accused, though it is also found that the complainant was jointly interested in the trees. Subudhi Rantho v. Balarama Pudi 26 M. 481. is authority showing that in such a case the possession will be taken to be exclusively that of the tenants.2. Then I am asked to follow Subudhi Rantho v. Balarma Pudi 26 M. 481. to the full extent and convert the conviction to one under Section 403 or 424 of the Indian Penal Code. I think to do so in this case would be unduly hard on the accused. The questions that would arise under those Sections have not been considered in the trial for theft. To distort the findings now before me so as to give them such an aspect as to convert them into findings under Section 403 or 424 would, as I have already s...
Krishna Rao Alias A. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Aiyasami Padayashi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.426
1. This appeal arises out of an unfortunate litigation. The matter has been before the Courts now four times and this is the fifth time that the questions have been considered judicially, and yet the questions in themselves are neither abstruse nor of unusual difficulty. They are whether two documents, Exhibits I and VI, are binding on the plaintiff. These documents were executed by the guardian of the plaintiff when he was a minor. He has now attained majority. His guardian is dead. The guardian was the plaintiff's natural father and had been appointed the testamentary-guardian of the plaintiff by his adoptive father. That he was an affectionate father and guardian to the plaintiff is stated by the learned Judge and has not been denied before us.2. Exhibits I and VI purport to have been executed for a total consideration of Rs. 1,575 each. The Munsif in the first instance found that they were valid to the extent of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 respectively. On appeal the Subordinate Judge up...
Vaikuntarama Pillai Minor by Guardian, Muthammal Vs. Athimoolam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad641(2); (1914)26MLJ612
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant during minority in favour of the third defendant who transferred it to the 4th defendant who again transferred it to the plaintiff. The transfer by the 3rd to the 4th defendant was attested by the 1st defendant after he had attained majority. Before the date of the attestation but after he attained majority the 1st 'defendant executed a settlement transferring all his property to his mother and wife on behalf of his minor son stipulating only for maintenance for himself. The District Judge has found that the settlement was intended to be operative, but that it was executed by the 1st defendant with intent to defeat and delay his creditors and there is no ground for questioning these findings. But he has also found that the plaintiff was a person defrauded, defeated or delayed by the settlement, so as to be entitled to set it aside under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. From this decision...
Sornammal Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad101; (1914)27MLJ66
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the South. Indian Export Company-I will refer to them hereafter as the company-applied to the Court for an older under Section 108 of the Insolvency Act that the estate of one Muruga Pillai deceased should be administered in insolvency. The application states that the deceased at the time of his death was indebted to the company in the sum of about Rs. 50,000. It also states that by three agreements the deceased had hypothecated skins and other things and also deposited with the company the title-deeds of certain properties to secure the repayment of the amount, due to the company, but that the company were informed that the value of the security held by them did not exceed Rs. 30,000 and they claimed to be unsecured creditors for the balance. An order was made on this application. The order was under Section 109; Section 109, Sub-section (1) provides : ' Upon an order being made for the administration of a deceased debtor's estate under Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »