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.
Nakondu Nagasami Iyer Vs. Thirukonda Ellaragan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1191
Devadoss, J.1. [After stating facts. His Lordship proceeded : - ] Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar for the appellant contended that the plaintiff's suit was not barred by res judicata as there was no executable decree in favour of the mortgagor in O.S. No. 430 of 1912. Both the lower Courts have relied upon the decision in Ranga Aiyangar v. Narayana Chariar (1916) 39 Mad. 896 for the view they took. The facts of that case were : - The first plaintiff's father mortgaged the plaintiff's properties with possession of the defendant's ancestor in 1864. The othi deed also contained a covenant by the mortgagor to pay the mortgage-money personally. The defendant's ancestor brought a suit against the mortgagor's son in 1867 for the recovery of the othi amount and obtained a decree. The operative portion of the decree runs as follows : - 'The plaintiff obtained from the defendants the suit amount and all the costs of the suit, that the othi property be sold in order to satisfy the decree in case the decr...
Subbamma and anr. Vs. Adimoortheppa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.269
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for the purpose of getting a declaration that the adoption made by the first defendant of the second defendant is invalid. That the form of adoption was gone through was found by the lower Courts. The first defendant alleged that she had the authority of her deceased husband to make an adoption and this was found against her both by the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge and it is a question of fact and I cannot interfere with this finding in second appeal.2. The appeal may be disposed of very shortly. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were the nearest reversionary heirs to the estate of the last male-holder. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 gave their consent to the adoption. The plaintiff and the third defendant were not consulted and they did not give their consent. The question arises in these circumstances, what is the effect of the adoption made by the first defendant3. It was held in Venkamma v. Subramaniam 30 M.P 50 : 34 ...
Anappindi Somayya Vs. Ayyalasomayajula Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad673; (1925)48MLJ224
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit as the reversioner to the estate of one Eswarappa who died in the year 1869 or 1870. After his death, his property was taken possession of by his widow Rajamma, and she died in the year 1917. In 1871 she sold some items of property in favour of the first defendant's father for Rs. 250. The sale is now questioned by the plaintiff on the ground that there was no necessity justifying the alienation. The vendor as well as the vendee have died and the question had to be tried after the lapse of about half a century from the date of the sale. As might be expected, there is no direct evidence as regards the existence of the necessity for the alienation. The deed of sale contains a recital that the sum of Rs. 250 was required for the purpose of discharging the debts incurred by the deceased husband of Rajamma. The burden was upon the alienee to show that the sale was made for a necessary purpose and the District Judge agreeing with the S...
Kudappa Seetharammayya Vs. Rongala Samudrudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad384
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged for the appellant is that under Exhibit I only a widow's life-interest was conveyed. This point was not raised in the Courts below and considering the way in which it was dealt with by the Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal in the first instance, it is quite clear that this contention was never thought of. The second issue remitted to the first Court, by the S.J. isAre the alienations, sale and mortgage of items 2 and 1 of the plaint schedule respectively, made for necessary purposes, or are otherwise binding on plaintiffs?2. It is quite clear from this that the parties went to trial on the footing that the alienation was an alienation of the property itself and not that of the life-interest of the widow. I do not think, considering the way in which the case was fought out in the Courts below that I should allow this point to be raised in Second Appeal.3. The second point urged by Mr. Suryanarayana is that Exhibit I does not amount to a surrend...
R. Arunachala Naidu Vs. S.R. Balakrishna and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad449; (1925)48MLJ134
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and on the 29th September 1924, the Court granted a certificate under the first part of Rule 3(1) of Order 45, Civil Procedure Code. The order granting leave concluded thus:We therefore certify that as regards amount or value and nature, the case fulfils the requirements of Section 110.2. On the 7th of October 1924, the petitioner made the present application under the first proviso to Rule 7 of Order 45, Civil Procedure Code, for being permitted to offer immovable property as security in the place of cash or Government Bonds.3. Proviso 1 runs thus:Provided that the Court at the time of granting the certificate may after hearing any opposite party who appears, order on the ground of special hardship that some other form of security may be furnished.4. Under this proviso such an application can be made only at or before the time of making an order granting the certificate under Rule 7(1). But it ...
Ganta Daniyelu Vs. Gunti Yesu Ratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1110
Devadoss, J.1. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent to this appeal. His contention is that the suit is one cognizable by a Small Cause Court, and Article 28 of the Act does not apply to a case like this; and the amount in dispute being less than Rs. 500, the second appeal is incompetent. The plaintiff sues as the heir of his wife; and Article 28 exempts a suit for a share of an intestate's property from the' cognizance of a Small Cause Court. The contention of the respondent's vakil is that the defendant also must claim the property of the intestate in his right as-legatee or as an executor in order to bring, the case under Article 28 and relied upon Chedi v. Gulabo (1905) 27 All. 622 and Tika Shahu v. Chirkat Shahu 19 C.W.N. 614. In this case the defendant does set up a will and the will has been found to be genuine. But the respondent's vakil says that should not ba considered, but only the plaint should be considered, and that the second appeal should be held to be in...
Karippayi Kathiri and ors. Vs. Karutiprath Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1172
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's, suit is not barred by reason of the decree in Original Suit No. 364 of 1915. The plaintiffs brought Original Suit No. 364 of 1915 on a marupath dated the 27th January, 1902 and claimed possession of Items A and B. It was found in that suit that Item B was not included in the marupath of 1902, and so far as Item B was concerned the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. He has brought present suit on an earlier marupath dated the 9th October, 1876 and has asked for possession of Item B. The District Munsif gave a decree, but the Subordinate Judge held that the present suit was barred by reason of the previous suit, Original Suit No. 364 of 1915. It is somewhat difficult to follow the argument of the learned Judge when he says that the plaintiff had only one cause of action in both the suits and that, he is not, therefore, entitled to succeed in the present suit. Original Suit No. 364 of 1915 was based upon a ma...
Anapindi Somayya Vs. Ayyala Somayajula Venkatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.483
Venkatasubba Row, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit as the reversioner to the estate of one Eswarappa who died in the year 1869 or 1873 After his death, his property was taken possession of by his widow Rajamma and she died in the year 1917. In 1871 she sold some items of property in favour of the first defendant's father for Rs. 250. The sale is now questioned by the plaintiff on the ground that there was no necessity justifying the alienation. The vendor as well as the vendee have died and the question had to be tried after the lapse of about half a century from the date of the sale. As might be expected, there is no direct evidence as regards the existence of the necessity for the alienation. The deed of sale contains a recital that the sum of Rs. 250 was required for the purpose of discharging the debts incurred by the deceased husband of Rajamma. The burden was upon the alienee to show that the sale was made for a necessary purpose and the District Judge agreeing with the Sub...
Kudappa Sotharamayya Vs. Rongala Samudrudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.4
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged for the appellant is that under Ex. 1 only a widow's life-interest was conveyed. This point was not raised in the Courts below and considering the way in which it was dealt with by the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal in the first instance, it is quite clear that this contention was never thought of. The second issue remitted to the First Court by the Subordinate Judge is; 'Are the alienations, sale and mortgage of items Nos. 2 and 1 of the plaint schedule respectively made for necessary purposes or are otherwise binding on plaintiffs?' It is quite clear from this that the parties went to trial on the footing that the alienation was an alienation of the property itself and not that of the life-interest of the widow. I do not think considering the way in which the case was fought out in Courts below that I should allow this point to be raised in second appeal.2. The second point urged by Mr. Suryanarayana is that Ex. I does not amount to a surr...
S. Arunachala Naidu Vs. S.R. Balakrishna and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.201
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and on the 29th of September 1921, the Court granted a certificate under the first part of Rule 3(1) of Order XLV, C.P.C. The order granting leave concluded thus: We, therefore, certify that as regards amount or value and nature, the case fulfills the requirements of Section 110.2. On the 7th October 1924, the petitioner made the present application under the first proviso to Rule 7 of Order XLV, C.P.C. for being permitted to offer immoveable property as security in the place of cash or Government bonds.3. Proviso runs thus:Provided that the Court at the time of granting the certificate may, after hearing any opposite party who appears, order on the ground of special hardship that some other form of security may be furnished.4. Under this proviso such an application can be made only at or before the time of making an order granting the certificate under Rule 7(1). But it was contended on behalf ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »