Chennai Court January 1924 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.
Ramani Alias Venkataramani and ors. Vs. M. Narayanasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.341
Odgers, J.1. In this case the suit was on a usufructuary mortgage bond executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the plaintiff-the 1st defendant being the father of defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The last two are the appellants before us. The 3rd and 4th defendants, who are undivided members of a joint Hindu family, which owns apparently large properties, have brought the suit to set aside the suit mortgage alleging inter aha that the document was only intended to operate if, on taking the accounts between the. defendants and the plaintiff, any amount was found due from the latter to the former. The matter before us arises directly out of the petition for the appointment of a Receiver in the Mayavaram Sub-Court in which the suit had been instituted. The suit was numbered 98 of 1922. Argument was heard; on the 19th September, 1923 the petition was adjourned for orders to the 21st September. For various reasons the order was not pronounced till the 2nd October, 1923, when the plaintiff was ...
S.P. Chinna Thambiar Vs. Veerappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad623
Phillips, J.1. All these petitions relate to suits filed by tenants against the landlord for commutation of grain rents into money rents. The Deputy Collector allowed this commutation and fixed the rate at which it was to be made. The landlord appealed to the District Judge on the ground that the rate fixed was too low and he calculated the value of the relief sought at the difference between the amount fixed by the Deputy Collector and the amount which he alleged to be correct and paid ad valorem fees on the amount. The District Judge has held that this is not correct but that a fee of Rs. 10 should be paid on each appeal under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, Clause 17(6) holding that it is a suit where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. Now the petitioner applies to have the order of the District Judge set aside.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Government Pleader tha...
Bathai Baluswami Iyer and anr. Vs. Chetty V. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.698; (1924)46MLJ497
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is a suit for sale of mortgaged property brought upon a hypothecation bond dated the 6th of December 1917. The interest was at 9 per cent. per annum, and in default of payment in regular monthly instalments it was to be at 15 per cent. Interest was regularly paid until the mortgagee died on the 30th of July 1918. Upon his death, there was a dispute between the widow and his adopted son as to which was entitled to his estate. Each gave notice (Exs. VIII and IX) to the mortgagor not to pay interest to the other claimant. The appellants, who are purchasers of the equity of redemption, paid the money due up to date on the 15th of January, 1920, into Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. There was a suit by a stranger against the widow and the adopted son, O.S. No, 49 of 1921, which was compromised by the widow admitting the right of the adopted son. The Subordinate fudge has given the latter, who is the plaintiff in this sui...
B. Baluswamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. C.V. Krishnaswamy Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad559
Spencer, Offg. C.J.1. This is a suit for sale of mortgaged property brought upon a hypothecation bund dated 6th of December, 1917. The interest was at 9 per cent, per Annum and in default of payment in regular monthly instalments, it was to beat 15 per cent. Interest was regularly paid until the mortgagee died on the 30th July, 1918. Upon his death, there was a dispute between his widow and is adopted, son, as to who was entitled to his estate. Each gave notice, (Exs. VII and IX) to the mortgagor, not to pay interest to the other claimant. The appellants, who are purchasers of the equity of redemption, paid the money due upto date on the 16th of January, 1920, into Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. There was a suit by a stranger against the widow and the adopted son, O.S. No. 49 of 1921, which was compromised by the widow admitting the right of the adopted son.2. The Subordinate Judge has given the latter, who is the plaintiff in this suit, a preliminary decree fo...
Ponnappa Reddi and ors. Vs. P. Thiruvengada Pillai and Company, by Par ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ104
1. The Madras Court of Small Causes passed a decree in plaintiffs' favour for Rs. 1,386-10-9 and costs and Vakil's fee Rs. 60 against the assets of the deceased Angusamy if any in the hands of the defendants. This decree was transferred to the District Munsif's Court at Tiruvallur. The plaintiffs attached some property as the assets of Angusamy in the hands of the defendants. The defendants 1 to 8 applied to the District Munsif of Tiruvallur for releasing the property from attachment on the ground that the properties were the joint family properties of the defendants 1 to 8 and Angusamy and that they were entitled to them by right or survivorship after the death of Angusamy. The District Munsif allowed the petition, and on appeal by the decree-holders the District Judge set aside the order of the District Munsif and upheld the attachment so far as the share of Angusamy was concerned. Against this order the present appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 8. The first contention on behalf of ...
Sengoda Goundan Vs. Muthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad625
Spencer, Og. C.J.1. This suit is for partition and the question argued before us relates to the plaintiff's claim to succeed to the share of his deceased minor brother by right of survivorship. There was a previous suit by the plaintiff and his brother, both being minors represented by a next friend, for partition, which ended in a compromise decree, Ex. A, dated 24th November 1915 It has been argued before us that, when two persons ask for a partition, it should be implied that they intend to get deviled from each other as well as from the joint family to which they belong. Nothing can be gathered from the fact that in the former suit, the two minor plaintiffs combined to ask for a partition as to their intention to become divided inter se. The right to obtain a partition, though, personal, happened to be common to both the plaintiffs, and common question of law and fact arose out of their suing. The mere fact that there was one trial and one decree in the former suit was a consequenc...
Ramakkal Vs. Govindanayakanpalaiyam Thirumal Paripalana Nidhi Ltd. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1107; 85Ind.Cas.574
Wallace, J.1. The only question argued by appellant before me is that of res judicata because of the decision in O.S. No. 151 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore and A.S. No. 21 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.2. In O.S. No. 151 of 1917 the present 1st defendant, the alienee, sued to establish her claim to the property sold to her by her brothers, which the present plaintiff had attached as the property of one of the brothers. The present plaintiff therein Contended that the sale was fraudulent and voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. On appeal A.S. No. 21 of 1918 the Subordinate Judge held that the sale was not an absolute sham, and that, as regards the plea of fraudulent transfer, the present plaintiff could not urge that in defence, without first suing to have the sale set aside, and there is no doubt that the law then stod so. Vide Palaniandi Chetti v. Appavu Chettiar (...
A.R. Srinivasachariar Vs. A. Raghavachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad676
Wallace, J.1. The suit site in this case was a vacant site of which no effective physical possession was feasible. In such a case, there is no doubt that the presumption is, that, when there has been no effective physical possession, possession will follow title. The lower appellate Court found in this case that plaintiff had no title, and that he had not been in possession within 12 years of suit. The decision on the question of title was one in law, and thus open to agrument in Second Appeal. As there was no very clear finding by the lower appellate Court that defendants had been in physical possession, and that therefore the presumption that possession follows title could not be called in aid on behalf of plaintiff, it was necessary to have the question of law, i. e., the question of the existence of any title in plaintiff, argued.2. The plaintiff claims title to the property as legatee under the will of a Hindu widow bequeathing her husband's property. It is conceded, of course, th...
Esufali Mahammedbhoy Allibhoy and ors. Vs. A.K. Thaha Ummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ150
Ramesam, J.1. This is a suit for damages to plaintiffs' goods consigned on defendants' schooner, Sahul Hameed. The schooner left Colombo on 25th August, 1917 and arrived at Tuticorin on 28th August with 250 cases of safety matches entrusted by plaintiff to the Master. The goods were landed on the 30th in a damaged condition. On a certificate of survey (Ex. C) by the Secretary of the Local Chamber of Commerce, the goods were sold by auction on 30-10-17 (Ex. G)and realized Rs. 3,142 (Ex. D). The market value is alleged to be Rs. 31,750. The suit is for the difference.2. Ex. II is the bill of lading issued by the defendant's agent. It contains the usual exemption clause--'The act of God, King's enemies, fire and all and every other dangers, accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation of whatever nature or kind soever excepted.' Though there has been considerable argument on the question of burden of proof and several cases have been cited before us, the matter seems to be clearly settled...
Gangi Ammal Vs. Govinda Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad544; 84Ind.Cas.626; (1924)46MLJ464
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit was instituted for the purpose of recovering certain property after setting aside a sale deed. One Muruga Padayachi executed a deed of sale on the 28th October, 1905 in favour of his sister's grandson Boorasamy. Eleven years after this transaction Muruga Padayachi's widow seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that it was conditional upon the vendee fulfilling certain terms, that there was default on his part and that consequently the sale was inoperative. It is said that one of the conditions was that the vendee should marry an infant daughter of Murugan. Another condition is said to be that the vendee's father should discharge certain debts binding upon the property. In regard to the first condition, the District Judge has held that the marrying by Boorasamy of the daughter of Murugan was not a condition precedent, and with this finding of fact I cannot interfere in Second Appeal. In regard to the second condition, the debts referred to are those c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »