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.
Narikkote Kunnamangalath Ittisseri Kuberan Nambudri Vs. Pothera Kalloo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ251
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 82 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Taliparamba. The suit was for redemption of certain lands by the plaintiff, and one of the issues raised was whether the plaintiff who claimed under an adoption had been validly adopted. It appears that in a previous action between the plaintiff and the first defendant the same issue had been raised and is now pending disposal in an appeal before the District Judge of South Malabar having been remanded after a second appeal by this Court. The defendant in this suit put in an application to the District Munsif's Court under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying the trial of this suit pending the disposal of that appeal which is still pending. The District Munsif made an order of stay. I think the order of the District Munsif was wrong. Under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is necessary that the matter in issue must be ...
Kodavati Subbamma and anr. Vs. Kodavati Papayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ425
Devadoss, J.1. Judgment in S. A. No. 1048 of 1922 : The only question argued in ., this Second Appeal is whether Ex. I is a will. The Subordinate Judge has held that Ex. I is not a will but an Anumathipatra, an authority to adopt and therefore it required registration; and being unregistered it did not empower the 1st defendant to make a valid adoption. The finding is that the 2nd defendant has been adopted by the 1st defendant. The only question therefore is whether the 1st defendant had authority to adopt. If Ex. I is a will then her authority to adopt would be unquestioned, if Ex. I is not a will then the authority to adopt not having been given by an instrument in writing and registered would be of no use. Ex. 1 is headed as 'will executed on 18th May, 1918, by Kodavati Pedarama Krishnamma's son Bullayya, and the closing lines of the document are' I am at liberty to cancel this will. This will is executed on my free will relating to these things, while of a sound state of mind.'2. ...
K.N. Krishnaswami Bhagavathar Vs. N.A. Thirumalai Iyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad101; 90Ind.Cas.410
Devadoss, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged their property on 24th April 1912, by two deeds in. favour of Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and Defendant No. 7. First defendant executed a third mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on 5th September 1916, Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 brought O.S. No. 3 of 1908, impleading the 7th defendant second mortgagee and obtained a mortgage decree. The third mortgagee, the plaintiff, was not a party to that suit. The property was sold in October 1919 and was purchased by the 4th defendant for Rs. 20,000. The 1st and 2nd mortgagees Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and 7 were paid the amount due on the mortgages. Eighth defendant who had obtained a money-decree against Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 attached the surplus amount in Court and was paid by a cheque for Rs. 4,585. The plaintiff attempted to prevent the 8th defendant from cashing the cheque, but his attempts were of no avail. The money now in Court is about Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff has brought this suit on his mortgage...
Kodavati Subamma and anr. Vs. Kodavati Papayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad748
Devadoss, J.1. The only question argued in this Second Appeal is whether Ex. I is a will. The Subordinate Judge has held that Ex. I is not a will but an Anumathipatra, an authority to adopt and therefore it required registration; and being unregistered it did not empower the 1st defendant to make a valid adoption. The finding is that the 2nd defendant has been adopted by the 1st defendant. The only question therefore is whether the 1st defendant had authority to adopt. If Ex. I is a will then her authority to adopt would be unquestioned, if Ex. I is not a will then the authority to adopt not having been given by an instrument in writing and registered would be of no use. Ex. I is headed as 'will executed on 18th May, 1918, by Kodavati Pedarama Krishnamma's son Bullayya, and the closing lines of the document are 'I am at liberty to cancel this will. This will is executed on my free will relating to these things, while of a sound state of mind.'2. The contention of Mr. Somasundaram on be...
Rajagopalachaiar Vs. Thiagaraya Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad991
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was for the enforcement of Exhibit B, on the basis that it purported to be a hypothecation bond for Rs. 300 executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in favour of the respondent on the 5th of July, 1913. Personal relief was also claimed as usual against the assets of the deceased mortgagor in the hands of the appellant for any balance that might remain due after the sale of the hypotheca. It would appear that the respondent had a mortgage of a later date 29th March, 1914, over the identical hy-pofeheoa and had obtained decree on it in O.S. No. 88 of 1919 without making any reference to the earlier mortgage which is the basis of this suit. Exhibit II is a copy of the plaint in that suit. The appellant resisted the present suit on four main grounds, viz., (1) that the bond sued on was not genuine; (2) that it was ineffective as a mortgage for want of proper attestation; (3) that the suit was barred by res ...
Rajagopala Chariar Vs. Thiagarya Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.481
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was for the enforcement of Ex. B on the basis that it purported to be a hypothecation bond for Rs. 300 executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in favour of the respondent on the 5th of July 1913. Personal relief was also claimed as usual against the assets of the deceased mortgagor in the hands of the appellant for any balance that might remain due after the sale of the hypotheca. It would appear that the respondent had a mortgage of a later date, 29th March 1914 over the identical hypotheca and had obtained decree on it in O.S. No. 88 of 1919 without making any reference to the earlier mortgage, which is the basis of this suit. Exhibit if is a copy of the plaint in that suit. The appellant resisted the present suit on four main grounds, viz., (1) that the bond sued on was not genuine; (2) that it was ineffective as a mortgage for want of proper attestation; (3) that the suit was barred by res judicata...
Narikkote Kunnamangalath Ithisseri Kuberan Nambudri Vs. Pothua Kalloor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.421
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 82 of 1918, on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Taliparamba. The suit was for redemption of certain lands by the plaintiff, and one of the issues raised was whether the plaintiff who claimed under an adoption had been validly adopted. It appears that in a previous action between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the same issue had been raised and is now pending disposal in an appeal before the District Judge of South Malabar, having been remanded after a second appeal by this Court. The defendant in this suit put in an application to the District Munsifs Court under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the trial of this suit pending the disposal of that appeal which is still pending. The District Munsif made an order of stay. I think the order of the District Munsif was wrong. Under Section 10 of the C.P.C. it is necessary that the matter in issue must be directly and substantially in is...
Kodavali Subbamma and anr. Vs. Kodavali Papayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.187
Devadoss, J.1. In S.A. No. 1048 of 1922. The only question argued in this second-appeal is whether Ex. I is a Will. The Subordinate Judge has held that Ex. I is not a Will but an Anumathipatra an authority to adopt and, therefore, it required registration; and being unregistered it did not empower the 1st defendant to make a valid adoption. The finding is that the 2nd defendant has been adopted by the 1st defendant. The only question, therefore, is whether the 1st defendant had authority to adopt. If Ex. I is a Will then her authority to adopt would be unquestioned; if Ex.I is hot a Will then the authority to adopt not having been given by an instrument in writing and registered would be of no use. Exhibit I is headed as ' Will execut-ed on 18th May 1918, by Kodivali Pedarama Krishnamma's son Bullayya,' and the closing lines of the document are ' I am at liberty to cancel this Will. This Will is executed on my free will relating to these things, while of a sound state of mind,'2. The c...
Sivagami Ammal and anr. Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad765; 87Ind.Cas.372; (1925)48MLJ390
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is of considerable importance. A suit for partition was allowed to be instituted by the plaintiff in forma pauperis. He died during the pendency of the suit leaving a will and appointing two of his sisters as executrixes. On their application to be brought on the record as legal representatives they were made plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit. One of the defendants in the suit would thereafter appear to have applied to the Lower Court under Rule 9 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, to dispauper the plaintiffs so added as legal representatives and the learned Subordinate Judge directed that they should, as a condition precedent to continuing the suit, pay the institution fee in respect of the plaint on or before a date fixed by him. Against that order this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.2. The questions that arise for determination are whether, when the plaintiff in a suit instituted in forma pauperis ...
Vabalareddi Mallaya and ors. Vs. Nayana Gajapathiraju Manya Sultan Bah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad464
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal, by Mr. Appa Rao for the appellant, is that the present suit is incompetent, as the plaintiff did not get a decree from the Collector fixing the rate of rent.2. His contention is that Section 77 of the Estates Land Act had no application to a case like the present one as the amount claimed is not an arrear of rent; for, the rent had not been fixed by the Collector or agreed upon by the tender of patta and the exchange of muchilika. The defendants are admittedly ryots, who have occupancy right to their holding.3. The plaintiff sued in O.S. No. 699 of 1914, in the District Munsif's Court of Chodavaram, for ejecting the appellants from their holdings on the ground that they were not tenants.4. The District Munsif found that the appellants were tenants and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. On Second Appeal, the High Court interfered, only with regard to the claim for rent.5. When the appellants are foun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »