Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
Rama Chetty and ors. Vs. Panchammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad402
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His case is that the 1st defendant and some others were members of a joint Hindu family ; that on the death of the 1st defendant's husband he became solely entitled to the property ; that the 1st defendant is in wrongful possession of the items mentioned in the plaint. His claim is for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to the items mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint, for delivery of possession for injunction and other reliefs.2. The case of the defendant is that her husband was not a member of the joint family with the plaintiff on the date of his death, but that he was a divided member of the family and he was enjoying certain properties in his own right, and on his death he is in possession of and them in her right.3. The Subordinate Judge has found on the evidence adduced that the defendant's husband was divided in status and that she was in enjoyment of the property and dismissed the suit.4. The appellant's ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Ranganatha Mudaliar Vs. A. Mohanakrishna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad645
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether the gift to the daughter of the testator of the house mentioned in the plaint conferred on her a vested interest in the property or merely a contingent interest. The testator had three daughters and two sons. Here we are concerned only with the gift to the eldest daughter Kuppammal. The Will of the testator was probated and marked as Ex. A. The testator appoints certain executors under the Will; he specifies the property which he has got and makes certain bequests to his daughters. Paragraph 17 of the Will is the paragraph relating to the house in question. In that he states as follows:Of my three daughters, at the time of the marriage of my eldest daughter, Sowbagiavathi Kuppammal, jewels for about Rs. 2,000 should be given and Rs. 1,000 spent for marriage, and after the debt has been cleared, besides giving ar streedhanam, House No. 3, Arunachellam Pillas Lane, Periamet, mentioned in para. 1, woman's cloths c...
Tag this Judgment!Kandada Thiruvenkata Charlu and ors. Vs. Shaik Altoo Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.458
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the inamdars of Lupuchendrapet seek to resume the plaint land which was granted for mudum service and to recover possession of it with mesne profits. The defendants contend that the land has been in the possession of their family for about 150 years and that they are entitled to enjoy it so long as they are able and willing to perform the duties of mudum, that there has been no default and that the land cannot therefore, be resumed.2. The District Munsif has found that the land is not resumable and the Subordinate Judge has confirmed this finding.3. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal. The lower Appellate Court on a review of the whole evidence has come to the con- -elusion that the grant cannot be resumed.4. This is what the learned Judge says: 'I am not satisfied on the evidence that the iman is resumable.'5. The appellant asks me to reverse this finding.6. The learned Judge has also found that there has been no default on the part...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Chetty and ors. Vs. Panchammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1028
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His case is that the first defendant and some others were members of a joint Hindu family, that on the death of the first defendant's husband he became solely entitled to the property, that the first defendant is in wrongful possession of the items mentioned in the plaint. His claim is for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to the items mentioned in schedules A, B, C, of the plaint, for delivery of possession and for injunction and other reliefs.2. The case of the defendant is that her husband was not a member of the joint family with the plaintiff on the date of his death, but that he was a divided member of the family and he was enjoying certain properties in his own right and on his death she was in possession of them in her own right.3. The Subordinate Judge has found on the evidence adduced that the defendant's husband was divided in status and that she was in enjoyment of the property and dismissed the suit.4. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Kathamuthu Pillai Vs. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad569; (1926)50MLJ228
Devadoss, J. 1. The plaintiff's suit is for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into with him by the 1st defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree for specific performance and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the 1st defendant. He has preferred this second appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that the direction in the decree 'that 1st defendant do draw the above amount on discharging the decree in O.S. No. 185 of 1910 of the Principal District Munsif's Court of Madura and filing a copy of the record of satisfaction' is bad in law. The argument of Mr. Rajah Aiyar is that when a decree for specific performance is given against the vendor he should not be directed to redeem any encumbrance on the property which was not disclosed to the vendee. The agreement, dated the 18th day of October, 1909, does not mention the existence of any encumbrance on the property contracted to be sold, nor is there any recital in it that there are no encumbrances on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kijanar Sheshappa Shetty Vs. Kijanar Devaraja Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad723; 95Ind.Cas.401; (1926)50MLJ434
1. We are invited in this second appeal to set aside a decree by which the Court of appeal below in concurrence with the Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 181-9-3 on account of expenses incurred by him for performing his marriage. The plaintiff is a junior member of a family of which the 'ejman' is the defendant. The parties are Jains of South Kanara governed by the Aliyasanthana Law. In reply to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant pleaded that he is not the ejman, that the plaint property is not family property, that the marriage was not arranged or performed with his consent and that, in any event, the cjaman of an Aliyasanthana family is not bound in law to contribute for the marriage expenses of a junior member. The Lower Courts overruled all these pleas. As regards the want of consent alleged by the ejman, it is conceded for the appellant that the Lower Courts should be deemed to have found that the cjaman'withheld his consent for the marriage perversely and...
Tag this Judgment!Katha Muthu Pillai Vs. Subramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.561
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into with him by the first defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree for specific performance and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the first defendant. He has preferred this second appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that the direction in the decree, 'that first defendant do draw the above amount on discharging the decree in Original Suit No. 185 of 1910 of the principal District Munsif's Court of Madura and filing a copy of record of satisfaction,' is bad in law. The argument of Mr. Rajah Ayyar is that when a decree for specific performance is given against the vendor, he should not be directed to redeem any encumbrance on the property which was not disclosed to the vendor. The agreement dated the 18th day of October, 1909, does not mention the existence of any encumbrance on the property contracted to be sold, nor is there any recital in it that there are no encumbra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›