Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
Katreddi Ramiah and anr. Vs. Kadiyala Venkata Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad434; 94Ind.Cas.83; (1926)50MLJ308
ORDERSpencer, J.1. M. Subbanna executed a will on 22nd September, 1914, and died more than two years afterwards on 5th January, 1917, leaving no sons but a daughter, a daughter's son and a widow.2. He appointed his wife executrix of his will authorizing her to pay his debts out of the proceeds of 1,000 bags of paddy that he had in store in 1914, to recover sums owed to him by others, to sell a certain house and site, to carry out certain charitable and religious dispositions, to adopt a son and to manage the adopted son's one-third share of immoveable property till He attained majority, etc., and then follows a general clause: 'I authorize my wife to conduct all the remaining affairs in my stead?' Respondent's vakil attempted to argue that 1st defendant was only an executrix for a limited purpose (of Section 35 of Probate and Administration Act), and that the intention of the testator was to empower her to transact only those affairs which he specifically mentioned in the will, The use...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar Vs. Narayanasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1240
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th February 1921 for Rs. 3,000, being the price of the plaintiff's house and some I building materials with interest at 10 annas per cent, per mensem. The plaint 1 alleges that the defendant took possession I of the house, but refused to fulfil his obligation on the note. The question I argued before me is that the defendant should be allowed to give evidence of an oral condition which would obviate or suspend the obligation evidenced by the promissory note. It is argued before me that the putting of the defendant into possession of this house was a condition 1 precedent of the arising of an obligation under the note. It is thus extremely important to find out if it is possible to do so from the very prolix written statement put in by the defendant, what exactly his position was at the earliest possible moment in the case. In paragraph 5 of his written statement he says : 'As ...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Iyer Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1020
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th February 1921 for Rs. 3,000 being the price of the plaintiff's house and some building materials with interest at 10 annas per cent. per annum. The plaint alleges that the defendant took possession of the house but refused to fulfil his obligation on the note. The question argued before me is that the defendant should be allowed to give evidence of an oral condition which would obviate or suspend the obligation evidenced by the promissory note. It is argued before me that the putting of the defendant into possession of this house was a condition precedent to the arising of an obligation under the note. It is thus extremely important to find out, if it is possible to do so, from the very prolix written statement put in by the defendant, what exactly his position was at the earliest possible moment in the case. In para. 5 of his written statement he says 'As the plaintiff did...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Servai Vs. President, Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ356
ORDER1. The question for decision in this case is whether, when a Local Board moves a Magistrate under Section 221 of the Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) to recover a penalty imposed for encroachment, the defaulting party can ventilate before the Magistrate his claim that there was no encroachment at all, and plead such a defence to the case.2. It is obvious that, if petitioner's contention be sound that he is allowed to plead such a defence, the Magistrate is constituted a sort of appellate authority over the Local Board in the matter of deciding whether or not there has been in fact an encroachment; and a wholesale application of such a principle would mean that in all cases of demand by the Local Board for fees, tolls, costs, compensation, damages, penalties, charges, expenses or other sums due to it, the Magistrate, a Judge appointed for the trial of criminal matters, is set up as the final Judge over the Local Board, except in so far as either party may take the matter befor...
Tag this Judgment!Kancherla Kanakayya Vs. Sri Rajah Venkataramayya Apparao Bahadur and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1287; 90Ind.Cas.1049; (1925)49MLJ443
Phillips, J.1. The question at issue in this appeal is, whether the transfer of the decree in favour of the 2nd defendant by his guardian ad litem to the 1st defendant is valid and whether the plaintiff is entitled to contend that it shall be deemed invalid. The Lower Courts have found that the transfer was not a fraudulent or colourable transaction and consequently the plaintiff cannot avoid it as being a transaction in fraud of creditors, but it is contended that inasmuch as the guardian ad litem did not obtain the sanction of the Court to the transfer it is void. This question has been considered in this Court and it has been held in Kancherla Kanakayya v. Mulpuru Kotayya : AIR1921Mad587 . that the sanction of the Court to such a transfer even after a decree is necessary, and in this it follows the prior decision in Shaik Davud Rowther v. Paramaswami Pillai : (1916)31MLJ207 . which itself follows Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa I I R (1901) B 109.2. Order 32, Rule 7 (2), Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. E.C. Kent Vs. Mrs. E.E.L. Kent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad59; 90Ind.Cas.669; (1925)49MLJ335
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 300 a month under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is a well-to-do planter who neglected to maintain his wife and two children. The wife made an application to the District Magistrate and he has passed the order which is sought to be revised.2. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that under Section 488 the Magistrate has jurisdiction to award only Rs. 100 in all for the support of the wife and the children. Mr. Mockett, who appears for the petitioner, relies upon the Words ' Rs. 100 in the whole ' and argues that the Magistrate cannot award more than Rs. 100 in all for the support of the wife and the children and that the award by the Magistrate of Rs. 300, Rs. 100 for the wife and Rs. 100 for each of the children is ultra vires. Clause 1 of Section 488 reads as follows:If any p...
Tag this Judgment!Lomada Pedda Subbayya Vs. Sattipalli Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ131
Odgers, J.1. This is a case of some little difficulty as the materials appear to me to be somewhat slender. The plaintiffs sued for certain inam lands claiming under the 5th defendant. The 1st defendant was in possession of these lands under a lease from defendants 3 and 4. When the case was first tried, the first District Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the matter fell within the purview of Section 21 of Act III of 1895. This was on the first issue as to 'whether the lands in dispute are service inams, and whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit with respect to the same'. The learned District Judge considered both these points and found that the lands in question were service inams governed by Act III of 1895; and as the plaintiffs in the suit did not rely on any right to an office or its emoluments, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and remanded the suit to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. On the su...
Tag this Judgment!Pachyammal Vs. Devanaiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1016
Waller, J.1. The suit is as regards the title to and possession of a house. Plaintiff alleges that she bought the house for Rs. 2,800 in August 1917 and allowed defendant, who is her brother's widow, to occupy part of it. As the latter is now setting up a title in herself, plaintiff sues for a declaration of her title and possession. Defendant replies that she bought the house with her own funds in the name of plaintiff 'for fear of her dayadies.' Why, if the funds were her own, she should have been afraid of her dayadies is not apparent. The reason is that if her real defence is true the funds out of which the house was acquired were not, strictly speaking, hers at all. What happened was this : defendant, a widow in possession of her husband's estate, sold part of it - a house - in April 1917 for Rs. 2,800. The reversioner at once filed a suit impeaching this and other alienations by the widow. In August, the house now in question was purchased by plaintiff for Rs. 2,800, precisely th...
Tag this Judgment!(Maringanti) Ramanujacharyulu Vs. Pindiprolu Buchi Mangarao, Manager o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1279a
Ramesam, J.1. The first point argued is that the 11th plaintiff was incompetent to file the appeal in the lower appellate Court. Mr. Lakshmanna relied on P. Krishnan Unni Nambiar v. C.M. Nilakandan Bhattathiripad (1882) 4 Mad. 141. That case related to the position of a Karayamma Samudayam under Malabar Customary Law. Here the temple is governed by a scheme and the order of the District Court, Godavari, dated 7th November 1919, modifies and supplements the original scheme, and I do not see that the appointment of a manager for the purpose of suing is ultra vires.2. The next point argued is that Ex. 1 is binding on the plaintiffs as it was in compromise of a bona fide dispute. The Subordinate Judge thinks that the dispute was 'merely a pretention' and he is entitled to find so on the evidence. Mr. Lakshmanna contends that the whole of the Subordinate Judge's reasoning in paragraphs 2 and 3 is vitiated by a mistake as to the pandal to which the litigation of 1905 related. It is true that...
Tag this Judgment!Pachayammal Vs. Devanaimmal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.776
Waller, J.1. The suit is as regards the title to and possession of a house. Plaintiff alleges that she bought the house for Rs. 2,800 in August 1917 and allowed the defendant, who is her brother's widow, to occupy part of it. As the latter is now setting up a title in herself, plaintiff sues for a declaration of her title and possession. Defendant replies that she bought the house with own funds in the name, of plaintiff 'for fear of her dayadies' why, if the funds were her own, she should have been afraid of her husband's dayadies is not apparent. The reason, of course, is that if her real defence is true, the funds out of which the house was acquired were not, strictly speaking, hers at all. What happened was this. Defendant, a widow in possession of her husband's estate, sold part of it, a house in April 1917 for Rs. 2,800. The reversioner at once filed a suit impeaching this and other alienations by the widow. In August, the house now in question was purchased by plaintiff for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »