Chennai Court October 1921 Judgments
Muthusami Naicken Vs. Pulavaratal and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad106(1); (1922)ILR65Mad266
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks for a declaration that he is the adopted eon of the deceased Ammasi Naicken and is entitled to the properties mentioned in the schedule which belonged to Ammasi Naicken in his lifetime.2. Ammasi Naicken died on the 13th of November 1915 of a carbuncle. It is alleged that, on the morning of the day when he died, he adopted the minor plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased's second wife's brother, and that he associated the second wife, who is third defendant, with him in the act of adoption. It may here be stated that Ammasi Naicken left three wives, Pulavarthal, Sellayi and Poovayammal, and that the first wife has been living apart from him for about 25 years. As doubts were thrown upon the said adoption, it is alleged that the third defendant went through the ceremony of adopting the plaintiff a second time on the 3rd of December 1917. The Subordinate Judge found that the adoption alleged to have been made by Ammasi Naicken was not true...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Naicken, Minor, by Next Friend Naga Naicken Vs. Pulavarattal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.504
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks for a declaration that he is the adopted son of the deceased Ammasi Naicken and is entitled to the properties mentioned in the schedule which belonged to Ammasi Naicken in his lifetime.2. Ammasi Naicken died on the 13th November 1915 of a carbuncle. It is alleged that, on the morning of the day when he died, he adopted the minor plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased's second wife's brother, and that he associated the second wife, who is third defendant, with him in the act of adoption. It may here be stated that Ammasi Naicken left three wives, Pulvarthal, Sellayi and Poovayammal, and that the first wife has been living apart from him for about 25 years. As doubts were thrown upon the said adoption, it is alleged that the third defendant went through the ceremony of adopting the plaintiff a second time on the 3rd December 1917. The Subordinate Judge found that the adoption alleged to have been made by Ammasi Naicken was not true, and t...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Coimbatore District and anr. Vs. D.D. Kanga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad51; (1922)42MLJ53
Spencer, J.1. It is evident from paragraphs 15 and 16 of the affidavit that accompanied both C.M.P. No. 2723 of 1919, the 2nd appellant's petition for stay of the sale of the insolvent's property, and C.M.P. No. 2724 of 1919, the petition for a direction to be given to the Official Receiver, Coimbatore, to file a suit against the Respondent in this appeal for damages on account of his action in allowing the promissory note for Rs. 10,000, to become time barred, that the purpose of the latter petition, was to get a suit filed within October 27th, 1919, after which date a suit upon that cause of action would have been out of time.2. C.M.A. 272 of 1919 , wherein the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore directing the Official Receiver not to file a suit was appealed against, was not placed before Odgers, J, for disposal, nor did that learned Judge purport to deal with the District Judge's order, 1 consider therefore that Bakewell J. who dealt with an application for stay of proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!C. Saminatha Chetty and anr. Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad46; (1922)42MLJ4
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the stepsons of the stepsister of the deceased and claim to succeed to his estate. Our learned brother Kumaraswami Sastri J. dismissed the suit, holding that plaintiffs are not heirs. The plaintiffs appeal. The only point for decision in appeal is whether the stepson of a stepsister is an heir under the Hindu Law (according to Mitakshara) as administered in the Madras Presidency.2. Mr. A Krishnaswami Aiyar who appeared for the appellant started his case by saying (1) that the stepsister is a sapinda of the propositus and (2) that the plaintiffs are her sapindas. But he did not, and rightly,--follow up these propositions by arguing that the plaintiffs are therefore sapindas of the propositus. Later on, he expressly disclaimed any intention to argue that the plaintiffs are Bandhus (or Bhinnagotra sapindas) of the deceased. On this portion of the case, it is only sufficient to observe, that, in general, sapindaship involves descent from a common ancestor, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Porkodi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad211; (1921)41MLJ587
ORDERKumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The 1st respondent as daughter and reversioner filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the widow of the last male holder alienating the lands specified in the plaint was not binding on her, for delivery of possession by the defendants who claim under the vendee, for mesne profits and costs. The plaint contained an alternative prayer that should the Court find any amount payable to the defendants then possession be decreed with mesne profits on payment of the sum so found due by the plaintiff to the defendants. Various pleas were raised by the defendants who contended that the alienation by the widow was binding on the plaintiff. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit as he was of opinion that, the sale was binding on her. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that there was necessity only for a sum of Rs. 3881-4-0 out of the consideration of Rs. 8,000 set out in the sale deed and decreed possession on payment of the sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Etc. Devasthanam Through Its Manager C. Kuppuswami Mudaliar App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad406; (1922)42MLJ1
1. The only question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is for recovery of certain lands forming the manibham attached to the office of Meikkavalgar. The 1st defendant who held this office was dismissed on 5-9-95. Between that time and the date of suit he has remained in possession of the suit lands except certain items which he has sold and mortgaged to others. The suit was not instituted till 1912 and the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it was consequently barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act.2. Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the appellant has attacked this conclusion on two grounds. His. first contention is that, as regards the items which the 1st defendant, the dismissed Meikkavalgar retained in his possession, the suit is not time-barred because something more than mete enjoyment of the income of the lands was required to constitute adverse possession. His reliance is on a decision of the Privy Council in Jalandhar Thakur v. Jharula Das I.L....
Tag this Judgment!P. Rama Pattar Vs. A. Viswanatha Patter,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad23; (1921)41MLJ567
Krishnan, J.1. The two acknowledgments made by defendants I and 2 in the account book, Exhibit B, are of no avail to save limitation against the joint family or against defendants 3 and 4, who were no parties to those acknowledgments. The District Judge has found on the evidence in this case that defendant 3, the father and managing member of the family, never ceased to be the manager, and never authorised any one else to act for him to manage and never held out any one as acting for him. This is a finding of fact which I think We must accept in Second Appeal. It was, however, contended that, even apart from any authority given by the 3rd. defendant, his son, the 1st. defendant, was entitled under the Hindu Law to act as the manager of the family in the absence of his father in Bjarma and elsewhere. For this position, reliance was placed on the ruling in Mud it Narayan Singh v. Ranglal Singh I.L.R. (1902) Cal. 797 and on the texts cited therein, particularly on that of Harita. The ruli...
Tag this Judgment!inaganti Venkatarama Row Vs. U.R.R.D.K. Venkatalingama Nayanim Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad49; (1922)42MLJ43
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. This petition arises out of an application made by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to amend the plaint as originally filed. The suit was filed by the Rajah of Kalahasti against the defendants on a mortgage executed by him. As the Rajah of Kalahasti before he succeeded to the Zamindari had lent a lakh of rupees to the previous Rajah, on the mortgage of certain villages, he filed a suit in two capacities. He described himself as the 1st plaintiff in his individual capacity and as the 2nd plaintiff in his capacity as the Rajah of Kalahasti. As the transaction according to him took the form of an absolute sale deed with a promise to reconvey and as only a sum of Rs. 84,000 out of the consideration was admitted by him, the reliefs he claimed were a decree for redemption after payment of Rs. 84,000 and for possession or in the alternative, if the transaction be held to be a sale and not a mortgage, for the recovery of Rs. 2,79,045 or such other sum...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Merchants Carrying on Business Vs. P. theperumal Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad314; 67Ind.Cas.905; (1922)42MLJ236
William Ayling, Officiating C.J.1. The transaction out of which this suit arises took place in July 1718, a time when speculation in piece goods was very brisk, Plaintiffs sold to defendant 14 bales of bleached mull. The goods were lying at the time with Muruganatha Chetty and Sons from whom plaintiffs had apparently themselves purchased them and whose shop was close to defendant's shop. Defendant in his turn sold the bales to one Amir Chund Idanmul giving him a delivery order on Muruganatha Chetty. Idanmull refused to take delivery of six out of the fourteen bales on the ground of unsoundness. Defendant complained to plaintiffs, who undertook to replace them by 6 sound bales, and induced defendant to take charge of the 6 bales left in Muruganathan's hands. This defendant did : but plaintiffs failed to exchange them for sound bales. Early in September prices fell heavily in consequence of the looting riots: and when Plaintiffs subsequently offered to deliver 6 sound bales, defendant sa...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Vs. P.T. theperumal Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad180
William Ayling, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The transaction out of which this suit arises took place in July 1918, a time when speculation in piece-goods was very brisk. Plaintiffs sold to defendant fourteen bales of bleached mull; the goods were lying at the time with. Muruganatha Chetty and Sons from whom plaintiffs had apparently themselves purchased them and whose shop was close to defendant's shop. Defendant in his turn sold the bales to one Amir Chund Idanmull giving him a delivery order on Muruganatha Chetty. Idanmull refused to take delivery of six out of the fourteen bales on the ground of unsoundness. Defendant complained to plaintiffs, who undertook to replace them by six sound bales, and induced defendant to take charge of the six bales left in Muruganathan's hands. This defendant did ; but plaintiffs failed to exchange them for sound bales. Early in September prices fell heavily in consequence of the looting riots : and when plaintiffs subsequently offered to deliver six sound...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »