Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Siva Subramania Pillai and anr. Vs. Piramu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1024
1. The Bench which heard C.M. No. 322 of 1919, decided that the surrender by Subbammal in favour of the appellant, if bona fide, would have the effect of divesting the respondent of her right to the property. Having taken this view of the law (we are not at present concerned with deciding whether this view is correct or not), the learned Judges remanded the case for the further question being determined whether the surrender was bona fide or not. The District Judge who has heard the case has recorded a finding that the surrender was not bona fide. This finding is attacked before us in this appeal.2. The effect of the learned Judge's judgment is this. Subbammal executed surrender in favour of the appellant who was her son. As part of the arrangement, the appellant undertook to pay and did pay his sister, that is Subbammal's daughter Arumugathammal a sum of Rs. 4,000. The District Judge mainly from this fact concludes that the Surrender was not made in good faith. To use his own words 'L...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalam S. Vaiyapuri Chetti and ors. Vs. P.K. Ramachandra thevar by Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.930
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad setting aside the order of the District Munsif of Satur. The petitioner's contention is that the District Judge's order is wrong and is opposed to the provisions of the Court Fees Act Section 7 Clause iv(c). The plaintiff sues for injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up a fence on the ground that the property is his and that the defendants have no right to it. The defendants contend that it is communal property and is not the exclusive property of the plaintiff. The suit is valued at Rs. 250 for purposes of jurisdiction and for purposes of Court-fee and the relief of mandatory injunction is valued at Rs. 50. The Court-fee of Rs. 22-7-0 was paid on Rs. 200 half of Rs. 400 being the estimated value of the plaint land. The District Munsif held that the property was worth more than Rs. 30,000 and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, with the proper Court-fee affixed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Bhai Vs. Purushothamadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad645; 90Ind.Cas.124
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff who is the widow and legal representative of one Goverdhanadoss against the defendant, her deceased husband's brother, for a declaration that the plaintiff's husband and the defendant ware members of a divided family, that the plaintiff's husband was entitled to a half share on all the properties devised under the will of his father and that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the properties, which were decreed to the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, in C.S. No. 163 of 1917 for partition and delivery to the plaintiff of her share and in the alternative for maintenance at Rs. 500 a month and arrears.2. One Raghunathadoss, who was the father of the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, was carrying on a large business, as a jewel merchant. He died about the 20th of October 1903, leaving behind him, the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, his sons. Ha left a will, dated the 19th of October, 1903, which is probatad...
Tag this Judgment!Metta Rambhatlu Vs. Metta Anniahbhatlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.605
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant against the decree for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been found that the contract was a valid contract and that the 3rd defendant (appellant) purchased property from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with notice of the contract. The only question argued in the appeal is that the contract is not one of which performance can be enforced by virtue of Section 21 of the Specific Belief Act I of 1877, because it is a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief. Under Section 12 of the Act 'unless and until the contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that a breach of a contract to transfer immoveable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money.' This rule would prima facie apply here, but it is argued that, as there is a condition in the contract for the payment of damages in default of performanc...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusami Aiyar and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ462
1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by the Rajah of Ramnad to recover quit rent (or poruppu) as well as road cess and rail cess and mahamai from the defendants who are in occupation of the village of Nedunthulasi in Rajasingamangalam Taluk of the Ramnad Estate.2. O.S. No. 33 of 1917, out of which Appeal No. 314 of 1922 arises, is a suit to recover what is due from the defendants for faslis 1321 to 1325. This suit stood over for decision pending the issue of a suit (O.S.No. 157 of 1913) brought by the plaintiff for recovering possession of the village of Nedunthulasi, which he alleged had been obtained from his father as an absolute gift free from all payments or liabilities through undue influence. The claim of the Rajah to recover the village from the possession of the defendants was finally rejected by the judgment of the High Court in Raja Rajeswara Sethupdthi v. Kuppuswamy Aiyar : AIR1921Mad394 . The decision, to which one of us was a party, was dated 3rd May, 1921. After t...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswamy Aiyer and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1282
1. These appeals arise out of suits, brought by the Raja of Ramnad, to recover quit rent (or poruppu), as well as road cess and rail cess and mahamai, from the defendants, who are in occupation of the village of Nedunthulasi, in Rajasingamangalam taluq of the Ramnad estate.2. O.S. No. 33 of 1917, out of which Appeal No. 314 of 1922 arises, is a suit to recover what is due from the defendants for faslis 1321 - 1325. This suit stood over for decision, pending the issue of a suit (O.S. No. 157 of 1913), brought by the plaintiff, for recovering possession of the village of Nedunthulasi, which he alleged had been obtained from his father, as an absolute gift, free from all payments or liabilities, through undue influence. The claim of the Rajah, to recover the village from the possession of the defendants, was finally rejected by the judgment of the High Court, in Rajawjeswam Sethupathi v. Kuppuswami Aiyar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 394. The decision, to which one of us was a party, was dated 3rd May...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Iyer and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.973
1. These appeals arise out of suits, brought by the Rajah of Ramnad to recover quit rent (or poruppu) as well as road-cess and rail-cess and mahamai from the defendants, who are in occupation of the village of Nedunthulasi in Rajasingamangalam Taluk of the Ramnad District.2. Original Suit No. 33 of 1917 out of which A.S. No. 314 of 1922 arises, is a suit to recover what is due from the defendants for Faslis 1321 to 1325. This suit stood over for decision pending the issue of a suit (O.S. No. 157 of 1913) brought by the plaintiff for recovering possession of the village of Nedunthulasi, which he alleged had been obtained from his father as an absolute gift, free from all payments or liabilities through undue influence. The claim of the Rajah to recover the village from the possession of the defendants, was finally rejected by the judgment of the High Court in Raja Rajeshwara, Sethupathi Avergal v. Kuppusami Iyer 68 Ind. Cas. 352 : 41 M.L.J. 474 : (1921) M.W.N. 722. The decision, to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanatha Mudali and anr. Vs. Doraiswami Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad289; (1925)49MLJ684
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the sale of the plaint property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on them as they are the reversioners of one Murugesa Mudali. They claim to he the grandsons of Muthusami Mudali, the divided brother of Kachi Muniappa Mudali, whose great-grandson was the deceased Murugesa Mudali. The District Munsif held that Muthusami Mudali and Kachi Muniappa Mudali being the sons of a prostitute there was no heritable blood between them and the plaintiffs had no reversionary right to the estate of Murugesa Mudali and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiffs are reversionary heirs to Murugesa Mudali and has remanded the suit for disposal on the merits. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.2. Muthuswami Mudali and Kachi Muniappa Mudali were the? sons of a dancing woman called Thanji Ammal. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are the legitimate grandso...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaswami Aiyar Vs. Tirumudi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1057; (1925)49MLJ665
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit for a declaration that a certain mortgage dated 14th December, 1903, executed by one Venkatarama Aiyar, deceased, in favour of one Sattayappa Chetti and the decree in O.S. No. 472 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Mayavaram obtained thereon were not binding on the trust properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from executing the said decree against the trust. It is contended that the plaint properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's maternal uncle Panchanadha Aiyar and that by his will, dated 8th January, 1898, he created a trust. This will is Ex. A in, the case and its construction is the first point raised.2. The 1st defendant contended inter alia that Venkatarama Aiyar got the properties as heir and not as trustee under the will, i.e., that he took the properties as the beneficial owner burdened with a trust to perform the charity therein mentioned. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff the declaratio...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarajulu Chetty and ors. Vs. Velayuda Udayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1160
Odgers, J.1. In the first of these cases, the plaintiff brought a suit on a, promissory note, dated 15th June, 1916, executed by one Balakrishna Chetty, deceased, to Appudayan the deceased adoptive father of the plaintiff. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the discharge alleged to be evidenced by Exhibit I was proved.2. The question was raised in this case, as also in the connected S.A. No. 1700 of 1923, whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of Appudayan, and by consent, the evidence on this point taken in the other ease was treated as evidence in this case before the District Munsif was contended by Mr. V.C. Seshachariar, for the appellant, that such a proceeding is wrong in law and that the vakils have no power to bind their clients by such a consent. The matter is, however, concluded by the Full Bench ruling in Jainab Bibi Saheba v. Hyderally Sahib (1920) 43 Mad. 609, that the evidence recorded in a previous judicial proceeding, between the same partie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »