Chennai Court April 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.
Rajamanicka Chettiar and anr. Vs. A. Manickam Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ723
Krishnan, J.1. The decision of this case turns upon the construction to be put upon Ex. A, the will of one Munirathna Chetty. The question is whether the will confers upon the legatees an absolute estate or only a life-estate. The District Munsif held that the interest conveyed by the will was an absolute one, but the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it conferred only a life-estate. The legatees are no doubt Hindu women, but I have already held in Chidambaratha Goundan v. Sellappa (1919) 10 LW 620 that the fact that the legatee is a Hindu woman does not raise any presumption that the estate given to her is only a life-estate. We have to decide the question on the language of the will as to whether only a limited estate was meant to be given or not. The language of the will in this case is no doubt somewhat peculiar. It says : ''The following are the particulars as to how each of the legatees should enjoy after my life-time.' It then sets out the list of the proper...
Rajamanickam Chettiar and anr. Vs. A. Manickam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad254
Krishnan, J.1. The decision of this case turns upon the construction to be put upon Exhibit A, the Will of one Muni-rathna Chetty. The question is whether the Will confers upon the legatees an absolute estate or only a life-estaie. The District Munsiff held that the interest conveyed by the Will was an absolute one, but the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it conferred only a life-estate. The legatees are no doubt Hindu women, but I have already hold in Chidambaratha Goundan v. Sallappa (1919) 10 L.W. 620 that the fact that the legatee is a Hindu woman does not raise any presumption that the estate given to her is only a life-estate. We have to decide the question on the language of the Will as to whether only a limited estate was meaut to be given or not. The language of the Will in this case is no doubt somewhat peculiar. It says : 'The following are the particulars as to how each of the legatees should enjoy after my life-time.' It then sots out the list of the...
Krishnamachariar Vs. Srirangammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad824
Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. By a rule framed by this Court in 1914 as an addition to Rule 13, Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were made applicable to applications to set aside ex parte decrees. It is suggested that that rule is ultra vires of the rule-making powers vested in this Court. I propose now to say very little about it, because I have already expressed my opinion on this matter in Sennimalai Goundan v. Palani Gounden (1916) 32 I.C., 975 and nothing that I have heard in the course of an extended argument induces me to think that that opinion was wrong. I think that the strongest ground on which the rule can be supported is this: that Section 5 of the Limitation Act obviously contemplates its extension by means of rules. In its old form it used the word 'rule' and the section was to be made applicable 'by any enactment or rule.' The words have been changed as follows: instead of 'by any enactment or rule,' the section now runs '...
Raja Manicka Chettiar and anr. Vs. A. Manikam Chettiar and ors. and Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.902
Krishnan, J.1. The decision in this case turns upon the construction to be put upon Ex. A, the Will of one Muniratna Chetty. The question is whether the Will confers upon the legatees an absolute estate or only a life estate. The District Munsif held that the interest conveyed by the Will was an absolute one but the learned District Judge has cofrie to the conclusion that it conferred only a life-estate. The legatees are, no doubt, Hindu women, but I have already held in Chidambaranatha Gpundan v.Sellappa Reddi 54 Ind. Cas. 524 : 10 L.W. 620 : 620 M.L.T. 37 that the fact that the legatee is a Hindu woman does not raise any presumption that the estate given to her is only, a life-estate. We have to decide the question on the language of the Will as to whether only a limited estate was meant to be given or not. The language of the Will in this case is no doubt somewhat peculiar. It says: 'The following are the particulars as to how each of the legatees should enjoy after my lifetime.' It...
In Re: Venkata Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1005
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The order of transfer (assuming it was made under Section 528, which is the section quoted at the head of the District Magistrate's proceedings) is bad for failure to state the reasons for the order, as required by Section 528 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order giving reasons for the transfer, if he thinks after hearing the accused or their Pleader that the case should be transferred from Dharmavaram to Penukonda....
Rajagopala Chetty Vs. Sivagami Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad779
1. This is an appeal under Sections 47 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in an execution matter. The appellant had obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,000 andodd, against the 2nd respondent, his father and in execution of that decree, had attached certain items of properties. Now these items had been transferred by the father to his 2nd wife, after the suit had been brought, but before attachment, by a deed of settlement. The plaintiff thereupon impugned the document, as one fraudulently executed, with a view to defeat and delay the claims of creditors, particularly of himself, The learned Judge disposed of the matter, without taking any evidence, as to the circumstances, under which the settlement was executed, to see whether it was not a case of fraudulent conveyance. He starts by observing that the plaintiff cannot be regarded as one of his father's creditors at the time, when the settlement was executed, as he had not obtained his decree yet, the suit being only one on accoun...
Bolla Guruvayya and ors. Vs. Cherukuri Venkatarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad810; (1924)47MLJ271
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This was a suit brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act which enables a person who has tendered a document for registration to bring a suit in a Civil Court against the refusal of the Registrar to register it.2. In this case the plaintiff tendered a document, which is before us, for registration. The document bears the most apparent traces of having been tampered with. In one sheet all the glaze of the paper has been destroyed and there is a very deep discoloration. Others bear obvious signs of the surface of the paper having been chemically dealt with but throughout although the discoloration is marked, in the operative sheets of the document, the signature, which is admitted, and the stamp paper at the top are practically intact. Expert evidence has shown that the discoloration and the destruction of the glaze on the surface of the paper is due to chemical action. The inference that those alterations were made after the execution o...
In Re: Ediga Thimmiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ355
ORDERSpencer, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the appellate Court's order to pay the complainant's Court-fees under Section 31 of the Court-fees Act.2. At the hearing an objection has been raised that the appellate Court's judgment is defective under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the bearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness on the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.3. The order to collect Court-fees from the accused passed. by the appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of Vemuri Seshanna I.L.R. (1902) M 421. The case in Queen-Empress v. Thangavelu Chetti I.L.R. (1898) M 153 was decided by a single Judge in September, 1898. The head note to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882. A which had not the same provision...
E. Thimmiah and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad136
ORDERSpencer, J.1. This criminal revision case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the appellate Court's order to pay the complainant's Court fees under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.2. At the hearing an objection has been raised that the appellate Courts' judgment is defective under Section 367 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure because the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the hearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness of the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.3. The order to collect Court fees from the accused passed by the appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of Vemuri Seshanna; In re (1904) 26 Mad. 421. The case in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti (1900) 22 Mad. 153 was decided by a single Judge in September 1898. The headnote to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882 which bad not the same provisi...
Ediga Thimiah and Six ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad914
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the Appellate Court's order to pay the complainant's court-fees under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.2. At the hearing an objection has been raised that the Appellate Court's judgment is defective under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the bearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness on the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.3. The order to collect court-fees from the accused passed by the Appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of In re Vemuri Seshanna I.L.R., (1903) Mad., 421. The case in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 153 was decided by a single Judge in September 1898. The head-note to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882, which had not the same provision under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »