Chennai Court August 1915 Judgments
Manika Mudali and anr. Vs. Muthachi Kavandan Alias Nallama Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad690; 30Ind.Cas.685
Ayling, J.1. In this case, both the lower Courts after careful consideration have construed the gift-deed, Exhibit I, as conveying to the donee (the wife of the donor) only a limited interest in the property. I do not feel justified in coming to a different conclusion. The general rule of construction is undoubtedly in favour of the view of the learned Subordinate Judge. As Mr. Mayne puts it, 'gifts by a husband to a wife of immoveable property, even though accompanied by express words of inheritance, are not alienable unless distinctly declared to be so.' In this case, there is no specific provision for alienation, and the special clause relied on by the appellants is simply the words sarva swathanthrathudan'; and I am not satisfied that they are sufficiently clear and specific to outweigh the usual presumption and present the donee with a full title. I have considered the numerous reported cases quoted by both sides in which various documents of different wording have been interprete...
Tag this Judgment!Bulusu Venkateswarudu and ors. Vs. Nimushakavi Bala Tripurasundari and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad503; 30Ind.Cas.769
Ayling, J.1. The question is whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the sum deposited in Court by their father on 11th April 1908 with the petition, Exhibit I. This petition was dismissed at the depositor's own request on 23rd November 1908 before notice was served on B. Subba Rao, one of the mortgagee's heirs. Respondents' Vakil argues that as the money was still left in Court, it was at the disposal of the mortgagee's heirs, but it seems clear to me that after the dismissal of the petition on 23rd November 1908 none of the mortgagee's heirs could have obtained payment of the money and no Court would have ordered payment under such circumstances. The dismissal of the petition was, therefore, tantamount to the withdrawal of the money and following the ruling of Krishnaswami Chettyar v. Thippa Ramasawmi Chettyar 8 Ind. Cas. 763 I must hold that the defendants are not entitled to claim cessation of interest.2. I may ...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.R.V.A.R. Subramaniam Chettiar and Ors. Vs. A.R.A.R.S. Somasundaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad697; 30Ind.Cas.777
1. On the authority of Kriyappa v. Rachapa 2 bom. L.R. 378 Mylan v. Annavi Madan 16 M.L.J. 99 and Original Side Appeal No. 20 of 1905 (unreported), we think that the transaction in this case evidenced by the accounts both of plaintiff and defendants, whereby the interest due up to October 25th was calculated and added to the principal, thus wiping out the debt on account of interest, was a payment which saved limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. An objection has been taken that the defendants were prejudiced by the frame of the plaint, which did not give the defendants notice that the plaintiff intended to rely on this payment to save limitation.2. An issue was framed on the question of limitation, and the parties having gone to trial on the subject, we cannot allow the appellants to raise this plea in the arguments in second appeal, especially when it has not been stated as a ground of second appeal. As regards the arguments (1) that the 5th defendant had no authority to...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Chetti Vs. the Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.839
1. It is very difficult to gather from the order of the District Judge under what clause of the Sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the appellant was convicted. The words realizing his property and distributing the proceeds among his creditors occurring in the District Judge's order seem to show that Sub-section (1), and not Sub-section (2), was in the mind of the District Judge.2. As pointed out in Harihar Singh v. Moheshwar Prashad 16 CrI.L.J. 135 (Jenkins, C.J., and N.A. Chatterjea, J.), proceedings under Section 43 of the Insolvency Act are in the nature of criminal proceedings and hence there should be a definite charge, a finding and a conviction as a foundation for the sentence.3. We set aside the District Judge's order and direct the District Court to re-hear the case to pass fresh orders after framing a definite charge using the words of Section 43 in that charge, as far as possible and mentioning briefly the alleged facts on which the charge is based....
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetti and anr. Vs. Chidumbaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad745(1); 30Ind.Cas.942
1. An order for staying the farther trial of a suit is similar to an order adjourning the trial of the suit and the observations in the judgments pronounced in the Full Bench case Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : (1910) M.W.N. 696indicate that an order adjourning the trial of a suit is not a judgment from which, when such order is passed by a single Judge of this Court, an appeal lies to a Bench. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nallagonda Pedda Chenna Reddi and anr. Vs. Asupallee Budda Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.55
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Both the plaintiffs are minors. They are suing by their father, Chenna Reddi as their next friend.2. The land in dispute belonged to their step-mother, Subbakka, by inheritance. She had only a life interest therein. She died issueless on the 21st August 1912. Two days before her death, she made a gift of the plaint lands to her minor step-sons, plaintiffs, evidently because she was on loving terms with her husband who was looking after the lands for her. The gift is, no doubt, invalid after her death as against the reversionary heirs of her father as whose property she inherited it. As I said, her husband was in possession on her behalf on the date of the gift-deed to her step-sons and he continued to be in possession during the two days which elapsed between the gift-deed and her death and for four days afterwards. Reading the plaint paragraphs Nos. 5 to 8 literally, it seems to me clear that the plaintiffs' next friend cons...
Tag this Judgment!Agustus Brothers Vs. M.A. Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad544(2); 31Ind.Cas.59
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts which have led to this reference by the Subordinate Judge of Cochin in a Small Cause Suit in his Court, might be shortly stated thus: The defendant made purchases from the plaintiff's shop for small sums from time to time till 26th May 1912, made part payments and had to pay Rs. 88-7-0 as balance on such purchases. The suit was brought in September 1913 for the recovery of this Rs. 88-7-0 and interest. The plaintiff had, at the end of 1912, brought a suit in the Village Munsifs Court of Cochin for the recovery of Rs. 2-4-0, being the price of one bottle of whisky purchased by the defendant in April 1912, this item of Rs. 2-4-0 being one of the several items of accourt in respect of the purchases made by the defendant up to the 26th May 1912.2. The lower Court has made this reference assuming that, if the first suit had been brought in an ordinary Civil Court instead of in the Court of the Village Munsif, Order II, Rule 2, corresponding to old Section 43 o...
Tag this Judgment!Viyapuri and anr. Vs. Sonamma Boi Ammani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.412
John Wallis, C.J.1. I should have been prepared to adopt the judgment of Munro, J., in Parthasarathi Naikan v. Lakshmana Naicken (1911) M.W.N. 201 : 21 M.L.J. 466, which was followed in Allahabad in Nandan Singh v. Jumman 17 Ind. Cas. 632 and approved by the Full Bench of that Court in Raj Nath v. Narain Das 24 Ind. Cas. 997, and was itself in accordance with the Calcutta decision in Aimadar Mandal v. Makhan Lal Dey 10 C.W.N. 904, if it were not this last decision has been questioned in Nandkumar Dobey v. Ajodhya Sahu 11 Ind. Cas. 465 and not followed in Bireshwar Samanta v. Periya Sakhi Debi 28 Ind. Cas. 917 where the opposite view taken by Abdur Rahim and Ayling, JJ., in an earlier case in this Court, Ramasawmi Chetti v. Ponna Padayachi 9 Ind. Cas. 28 was accepted as being in accordance with the decisions of the Privy Council in Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum 7 M.I.A. 323 , Karan Singh v. Bakar Ali Khan 9 I.A. 99 : 4 SP.C.J. 382. Before dealing with these decisions, I may say w...
Tag this Judgment!Vyapuri and anr. Vs. Sonamma Boi Ammani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad990(2); (1916)ILR39Mad811
John Wallis, C.J. 1. I should have been prepared to adopt the judgment of Munro, J., in Parthasarathy Naicker v. Lakskmana Naieker I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 231 which was followed in Allahabad in Nandan Singh v. Jumman I.L.R. (1912) All. 640 and approved by the Full Bench of that Court in Raj Nath v. Narain Dass I.L.R. (1914) All. 567 and was itself in accordance with the Calcutta decision in Aimadarmandal v. Makhan Lal Dey I.L.R. (1906) Cal. 1015 if it were not that this last decision has been questioned in Nand Kumar Dobey v. Ajodhya Sahu (1911) Cri.L.J. 292 and not followed in Bireshwar Samanta v. Priya Sakhi Debi 28 Ind.Cas. 917 where the opposite view taken by Abdur Rahim and Ayling, JJ., in an earlier case in this Court--Ramasami Chetti v. Poona Padayachi I.L.R. (1913) Mad. 97--was accepted as being in accordance with the decisions of the Privy Council in Vrannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea Begum (1859) 7 M.I.A. 323 and Karan Singh v. Bakar Ali Khan I.L.R. (1883) All. 1 : 9 I.A. 99. Before d...
Tag this Judgment!Mammu and ors. Vs. Muhammad Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1203(2); 31Ind.Cas.385
1. We have heard a very full argument in this case both on the facts and on the law. As regards the facts the evidence is altogether insufficient to show that tile mother of the sisters, Athavi and Kuttiyacha, who is said to have borne the name of Veerayi, was the sister of Mukkilakath Kadirkutti, the last survivor of the tarwad. hey did not, therefore, belong to his tarwad by birth. We think, however, that the evidence shows that they were affiliated to it. See Exhibit A executed by the son of Kadirkutti and the admissions in Exhibits B, C, D and E by Kammukutti, who was the son of Kuttiyacha and the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that the two sisters and their children were members of a tarwad of which he claimed to be the karanavan. As early as 1858 the two sisters in Exhibit H claimed to hold some of the plaint properties as members of a tarwad. There is also oral evidence to the same effect. All these documents show that they considered themselves to belong to the same tarwad ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »