Chennai Court November 1918 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.
Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Bagirathi Ammal, Deceased and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.597
1. The dispute relates to a gift of a small portion of the family property to one of the members at the partition. The family originally consisted of a father, three sons and the children of two of the sons, one of the sons died issueless. His funeral ceremonials were performed by the husband of the plaintiff, who was a son of one of the sons, Ramakrishna Aiyar. The deed provided that a portion of the family property should be given to this boy, as he per. formed the funeral ceremonies of his deceased uncle and as he was requested to perform the annual sradhs. Very soon after, the donee died and the suit is by the widow to recover the property given to her husband. The defence is that it is not competent to members of a joint Hindu family to give away family properties for such a purpose. The District Munsif upheld the gift. The learned District Judge has reversed that judgment.2. In our opinion he is wrong. The texts of Mitakshara quoted in Kameswara Sastri v Veeracharlu 8 Ind. Cas. 1...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Govindaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ104
1. This second appeal can be disposed of on the short point of limitation. The bond and the pronote sued on were executed in February and April 1910. The suit was brought in July 1915. In October 1910 the 1st defendant applied to be adjudged an insolvent and was so adjudged in December 1911. In July 1914 that adjudication was annulled because there was a composition with the creditors. Apparently the present plaintiff received no dividends under the composition. He is the assignee of the bond and the pronote. The question is whether his present claim is barred by limitation. Mr. Bhashyam Aiyangar for the respondent, contended that Section 15 of the Limitation Act saved the bar. His argument was that the order of adjudication was tantamount to an order to stay all further proceedings in the matter. As we read Section 16, Clause (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, what the order of adjudication effects is not an absolute stay, but a direction that before a suit is brought a condition p...
M.S. Yesuvadiyan Vs. P.S.A. Subba Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.704
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appeal arises in a suit to recover sums of money amounting to Rs. 8,000 from the defendant on the basis of certain dealings. The plaintiff is a dealer in cotton and had been doing business with Messrs. Giddam & Co. and afterwards with the New Berar Company. supplying therewith cotton. The defendant was at first a writer employed in Gaddam & Co.'s office and afterwards did business as a broker. Admittedly the defendant had dealings with the plaintiff; he used to pay moneys to the plaintiff by way of deposit and drew moneys from time to time. The dealings out of which this suit has arisen covered a period of 5 or 6 years, and the claim of the plaintiff is that, on taking accounts, he was entitled to the sum which he has claimed. The defendant's case, on the other hand, is that he was entitled to R3. 7,000 and odd and not that he owed anything to the plaintiff. The mode of dealings between the parties was of an extremely lax character. The defendant paying in sums of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›