Chennai Court October 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.
Gondu Ramasubba Iyer Vs. Muthiah Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad968
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of money due under a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant. The defence is that the debt due under the hypothecation bond was discharged by the sale of property belonging to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's case is that a fraud was perpetrated on him by the 1st defendant which makes the sale-deed void and he is therefore, entitled to sue for the recovery of the debt due under the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have found that there was no fraud committed by the 1st defendant, that the plaintiff purchased with full knowledge of all the circumstances and that he is not entitled to sue on the hypothecation bond. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The first point raised by Mr. Venkatachariar, is that the evidence to vary the terms of the sale-deed, Exhibit A, should not have been admitted. Though this point was not taken in the Courts below, I allowed him to raise the point as it wend into the root of...
Piramu Ammal and anr. Vs. Serunatha Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1175
Devadoss, J.1. One Achia Pillai executed a Will, Exhibit A, on 22nd May, 1908, devising his properties to his foster son, Nallakannu Pillai, 1st defendant's husband, and bequeathing some properties to the plaintiffs, his wives, to be enjoyed by them for life. Achia Pillai bought the plaint properties in 1909 and 1913 and died in 1914, Nallakannu Pillai died in 1917. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for possession of the plaint properties. The 2nd defendant is the alienee of the properties from the 1st defendant. The District Munsif held that there was an intestacy as regards the plaint properties; that the plaintiffs, being the widows of Achia Pillai were entitled to the properties and gave a decree in their favour. Both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant preferred separate appeals against the decree of the District Munaif. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly held that the plaint properties passed to Nallakannu Pillai under the Will and dismissed the plaintiffs' su...
Veerappan Alias Palaniappan Chetti Vs. Mylai Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1097; 87Ind.Cas.285
Jackson, J.1. This is a suit on a pro-note. The 3rd defendant denied liability on a plea that he was divided from the family. The Small Cause Judge accepted this plea on the evidence of Ex. I. There is oral evidence to the same effect which he has not discussed. The sole question raised by petitioner (plaintiff) is whether Ex. I is acceptable in evidence inasmuch as it is a deed of partition affecting immovable property and not registered.2. Counter-petitioner raises the usual argument that Ex, I is a mere memorandum. He cites various rulings, but this is a pure question of fact to be decided on a perusal of the actual document. Spencer, J., has made the same observation in Ayyakutti Mankondan v. Periasami Koundan : AIR1914Mad121(2) . Exhibit I is described as a list of partition resultant upon the award passed by panchayatdars. It contains the share given to 3rd defendant, mentions three items out of that share made over to Kannusami, is signed by Kannusami and 3rd defendant, and is a...
Bavachi Vs. Vizhoth Kanhirote Kunhi Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.909
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to set aside the decree passed against him in A.S. No. 266 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The plaintiffs were kanomdars against whom the jenmi had obtained a decree for redemption on 3rd February, 1915. On 22nd June, 1915, the plaintiffs compromised their suit for rent against the present petitioner by arranging (Ex. C) that they would pay into Court the improvements found due to the petitioner in the jenmis suit (Rs. 563-13-0) and then the petitioner should deduct from that sum Rs. 1.69-8-8 the amount of rent due from petitioner to plaintiffs, and take the balance of Rs. 394-4-4 as compensation for improvements. The plaintiffs instead of themselves paying in the improvement value waited till their jenmi paid in Rs. 563-130 to petitioner's credit to ejected them under his decree. The petitioner then instead of leaving Rs. 169-8-8 as due to plaintiffs for rent, drew the full amount. Plaintiffs accordingly brought ...
Gondu Ramasubbu Iyer Vs. Muthiah Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.999
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of money due under a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant. The defence is that the debt due under the hypothecation bond was discharged by the sale of property belonging to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's case is that a fraud was perpetrated on him by the 1st defendant which make the sale-deed void and he is, therefore, entitled to sue for the recovery of the debt due under the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have found that there was no fraud committed by the 1st defendant, that the plaintiff purchased with full knowledge of all the circumstances wad that he is not entitled, to sue on the hypothecation bond. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The first point raised by Mr. Venkatachariar, is that the evidence to vary the terms of the sale-deed, Ex. A., should not have been admitted. Though this point was not taken in the Courts below, I allowed him to raise the point as it went into the root of t...
Natesa thevan Vs. District Board of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad314
Krishnan, J.1. The first point taken in, this second appeal is that the lower Courts had no jurisdiction to try the case as the plaint land is raiyati land and, therefore, governed by the Madras Estates Land Act. I think that the decision, of the lower Courts is correct on the point, for they find that the land was tank-bed land and is still tank-bed land. The evidence is clear on the point and the finding come to by the lower Courts is a finding of fact, which I must accept in second appeal. Nothing turns upon the definition of the words 'tank-bed' in the Estates Land Act, so far as this case is concerned. That being so, the plea of no jurisdiction fails, and must be rejected.2. The next question argued before me is as regards the compensation which the defendants claim for improvements made on the land. That, no doubt, depends on the application of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The District Munsif has found that the defendant did not act bona fide in making the improvem...
(Addepalli) Kondayya Vs. Yandru Veeranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad543
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in A.S. No. 45 of 1921. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby the defendant was permitted to rest the beams of a structure upon plaintiff's wall, and to open certain cupboards in the said wall, in exchange for land which plaintiff added to his property. Plaintiff alleges that the full amount of land has not been made over to him, and sues to have the cupboards and beams removed. The lower appellate Court has found that less land than what is alleged by plaintiff was agreed to be exchanged, and that defendant has fulfilled his part of the agreement. Accordingly it has dismissed plaintiff's suit and plaintiff appeals.2. Two points have been argued: (1) The lower appellate Court's finding on the facts is not based upon any evidence (10th ground of appeal); (2) the exchange pleaded by defendant is not valid since there was no registered document and no delivery (2nd ground).3. I do not fi...
Murugappa Asari Vs. Shanmuga Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad909
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The properties were sold on the 22nd of September 1920. The defendant, within 30 days from then deposited in Court the requisite amount for getting the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. He swears that he made an oral application under that rule and that he was under the impression that in due course the sale would be set aside. Apparently no order was made on his application. The sale was confirmed and the auction-purchaser took possession of the property. The delivery to him was on 30th August 1921, and on 10th September 1921 the defendant complained to the Court that the property had been taken possession of by the purchaser and that he (the defendant) throughout believed that his application under Order 21, Rule 89 had been granted. I think the District Munsif finds (so the District Judge understands him) that there was an oral application within the time prescribed by the law. If there was such an application how was it disposed of? We are merely...
Davuthammal Vs. Pasari Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1064
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is on a pro-note dated the 22nd August 1917. The District Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was in possession of the assets of her deceased husband, Sikkandar Bowther and that she could not bring a suit for her dower, when she herself was in possession of the assets of her husband.2. Mr. Jayarama Iyer, who, appears for the appellant, contends that the lower Court ought to have remanded the suit for trial to the First Court converting it into an administration action; and he relies on Muhammad Sharafat v. Wahida Sultan Begum 19 C.W.N. 502. In that case a Muhammadan woman brought a suit for dower against the heirs of her deceased husband and it appeared that she was in possession of a portion of the assets of her husband, and the Court held that it was not proper that her suit should be dismissed, but that her action should be converted into one for administration. The learned Judges followed the case in C...
M. Rama Rao Vs. Appu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1226; 88Ind.Cas.924
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this second appeal is that Ex. I is a lease for 70 years and not for 100 years, Mr. Sitarama Rao for the appellant relies upon the wording of the lease and contends that it must be taken to mean that the rent was payable at a certain rate for the first ten years, at a certain other rate for the next ten years, and at a third rate for 70 years from the date of Ex. I. The Subordinate Judge has interpreted the deed to mean that for the first ten years the rent payable was at a certain rate; for 20 years thereafter the rent was to be at a certain other rate and for 70 years thereafter the rent was to be at another, rate. If the language is dear that the rent for the first 10 years was to be at a certain rate for the next ten years, at a certain other rate and for 70 years thereafter at another rate, there would be no difficulty in interpreting this document. But in the document no word meaning 'for' has been used. The Subordinate Judge has interpret...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »