Chennai Court January 1922 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.
Madam Pillai Vs. Badrakali Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad311; (1922)42MLJ410
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., C.J.1. The Chief Justice: The question referred to us in this case is 'whether a transfer of land of the value of more than Rs. 100-0-0 by a husband to his wife to be enjoyed by the latter during her life time in discharge of her claim to future maintenance can be made without writing.'2. It was argued first that such an agreement was a gift, because it was said that such a bargain was illegal and, therefore, without consideration : but it had to be admitted that, if the bargain was to receive the land in discharge of the claim to future maintenance, there was nothing illegal at all; and it is not necessary to say anything further on the subject of gift. By the Transfer of Property Act, Section 9 'A transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law' and, therefore, one has to look' at the rest of the Act to see whether writing has been expressly required by law for such a transaction as this. Ap...
C. Doraivelu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Goday Adikesavalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad409; 70Ind.Cas.87
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal brought by the two worshippers (plaintiffs in the suit) against the respondent who is the hereditary Dharmakartha of two temples at Chintadripet, Madras. The suit was originally heard before Coutts-Trotter, J and dismissed without calling upon the defendant. But that decision was reversed and the suit came on for trial before Kumaraswami Saatri, J., and it is from his judgment that this appeal is brought.2. Questions under Section 10 of the limitation Act of 1908 arose and have been argued before us. The law is clear that a suit based on the failure of a trustee to reduce trust property into possession is barred under the Act notwithstanding Section 10. Further a trustee is not liable for the acts or defaults of his predecessors. If the defendant himself had actually received money for which he had not accounted, Section 10 prevents any period of limitation running, and in my view it is also right to say that if he held money in another capacity...
Angati Parambath Kanniyalli Ratha Vs. thekke Illath Neelakhanohan Alia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad194; 67Ind.Cas.600
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff alleges that he is the jenmi of the plaint property and that he applied to have the land registered in his name in 19 7 and that, on the objection of the defendant, the Revenue Authorities refused to change the registry. He, therefore, sues for a declaration that he is the jenmi of the plaint land. Both the Courts dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation under Article 120. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. It is found that the plaintiffs father applied in 1903 for change of revenue registry to his name and the Settlement Officer ordered that the registry should stand as it did. It is contended on his behalf that the suit is not barred by limitation as there was a fresh cause of action in 1917. He relies upon Brojendra Kishore Roy v. Bharat Chandra Roy [Abdul Razac] (1). The facts in that case were the plaintiffs claimed title to some property by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. They took possession but were resis...
Tripurana Seethapati Rao Dora Vs. Rokkam Vencanna Dora and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad71; 66Ind.Cas.280; (1922)42MLJ324
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case I had the opportunity of reading the judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J and I agree with him entirely.Coutts Trotter, J.2. I agree.Kumaraswami Sastri, J.3. The question referred to us for determination is whether a recital in a judgment not inter-partes of a relevant fact is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The suit was filed by the plaintiff--appellant to recover the immovable properties specified in the plaint on the ground that he purchased them from the reversionary heirs of one Adinarayana on whose death his mother Chandramma succeeded to a limited estate conferred on her by Hindu Law as mother of the last male owner. Chandramma alienated the properties and the suit to recover the properties from the alienees had to be filed within 12 years from the date of Chandramma's death under Article 141 of the Limitation Act,, IX of 1908. As the defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, the date of Ch...
Jogi Venkiah and ors. Vs. Station House Officer of Narasapur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad78; 67Ind.Cas.339; (1922)42MLJ401
1. In this case the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Narasapur, in acquitting a person charged with an offence under Section 406, made an order under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, that certain jewels which were the subject-matter of the charge should be returned to the complainant. An appeal against this order was preferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram. He dismissed it on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the case ended in acquittal. 2.The jurisdiction of the court to vary an order under Section 517 is conferred by Section 520 which speaks of 'any court of Appeal, confirmation, reference or revision '. The meaning of these words has been differently interpreted by this Court and by the Bombay High Court. The latter has held in In re Khema Rukhad I.L.R(1918) . 42 Bom. 664 that the words 'Court of Appeal' mean the Court to which an appeal lies in the particular case. This Court has held in Queen Empress v. Ahmed I.L.R(1886) Mad. 448 t...
Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Thiyagaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ183
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Acting Subordinate Judge of Tanjore who reversed the decision of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi on the question of limitation and remanded the suit for disposal on the other issues raised in the case.2. The main facts necessary for determining the issue of limitation may be briefly stated. The kudivaram rights in the properties to which this suit relates belonged to one Sama Rao and were sold for arrears of rent due by him to the Palace Estate and were purchased by one Maria Pillai on 1st March, 1895, to whom the Palace Estate granted a patta. Maria Pillai, on 1st January, 1897, hypothecated the properties to one Nethar Bibi who filed O.S. No. 400 of 1902 and obtained a decree. She assigned the decree to one Thiyagaraja Pillai and he in execution of the decree purchased the properties on 5th September, 1906, and obtained symbolical possession of them on 27th August, 1907. Thiyagaraja Pillai is the plaintiff in the present suit which was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›