Chennai Court April 1925 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.
Vayyaprath Kunnath Packi Vs. Vayyaprath Kunnath Muhammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ513
Phillips, J.1. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether a junior member of a Malabar tarwad can sue on behalf of the tarwad, even when there is a karnavan in existence, who can bring the suit. The powers of a karnavan have been considered on many occasions and it has always been held that he is the controlling authority of the tarwad and that all the powers of management are vested in him. In fact, over sixty years ago, it was held by Mr. Holloway, with regard to a karnavan : ' A Malabar family speaks through its head, the karnavan, and in Courts of Justice except in antagonism to that head can speak in no other way. ' That principle has been upheld in Vasudevan v. Sankaran ILR (1897) M 129 and what is practically the same principle has been laid down later in Soopi v. Mariyoma ILR (1919) M 393. adopting a decision in S.A. No. 959 cf 1917 in which it was held that ' only under very special circumstances could the anandravan of the tarwad maintain a suit for redempt...
Nelakanti Sundarasiva Row and ors. Vs. Ivatury Viyamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ266
1. Two points are raised for decision in this appeal. The first question we have to decide is whether when the two sisters Viyamma (the 1st defendant) and the deceased Peramma divided their women's estate, they did so merely with a view to convenient enjoyment, retaining the right of the survivor to take the whole on the death of one of them or whether such right of survivorship was expressly excluded by agreement between the parties. It is not denied that it was open to the sisters to do either in a manner binding between themselves. The question is one of fact and the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the right of survivorship was expressly excluded.2. The properties originally belonged to one Perayya. He died without male issue and he had no coparceners. His estate therefore passed to his widow Rajamma. She died 25 years ago and the estate then passed to Perayya's two daughters, Viyamma and Peramma, they taking a joint daughter's estate for life. It was these ladies that divid...
The Madura, Etc., Devasthanam Through Its Receiver, Muthu K.R. V. Alag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad57; (1925)49MLJ516
Phillips J.1. The plaintiffs are holders of a pipe service in a temple and have brought this suit for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff has one-fourth share in the inam, the 2nd plaintiff has one-fourth share, plaintiffs 3 to 6 have one-fourth Share and the 3rd defendant has one-fourth share. Objection was taken to the framing of the suit on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. This should undoubtedly have been upheld because the charges of misconduct against the several plaintiffs are not identical and each plaintiff's case ought to have been dealt with on its own merits, and it might well have been found that in so far as some of the plaintiffs are concerned the order of dismissal was unwarranted, whereas in respect of others it was fully justified. That alone is sufficient to constitute misjoinder but there is another fact which shows that there is more than one cause of action. In the case of plaintiffs 3 to 6 t...
Vepuri Subbayya Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad832
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The 1st respondent is the Secretary of State for India. The plaintiff is the owner of certaininam survey fields in the village of Vemulapalli, namely, Nos. 89, 97, 98, 100, 103 and 104. These lands are irrigated by the water of a tank called Mukkuvanigunta which is situated in Survey No. 101. The plaintiff is the owner of the tank and also of Survey No. 102. The tank was filled by the water of a. channel, which takes its rise from the hills near Gopavaram. Gopavaram is the village immediately north of the village of Ganapavorigudem and the-latter village is immediately north of Vemulapallu All the three villagers originally belonged to a zemindar, but some time before the middle of the last century the zemindari ceased to exist and all the villages passed to the Government. The channel takes a definite shape according to the old survey plan of 1864 (Ex. XI.) in the field marked No. 34 and described as a jungle. It then passes thro...
(Nelakanti) Sundarasiva Row and ors. Vs. Ivatury Viyamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1267
1. Two points are raised for decision in this appeal. The first question we have to decide is whether when the two sisters Viyamma (the 1st defendant) and the deceased Peramma divided their women's estate, they did so merely with a view to convenient enjoyment, retaining the right of the survivor to take the whole on the death of one of them or whether such right of survivorship was expressly excluded by agreement between the parties. It is not denied that it was open to the sisters to do either in a manner binding between themselves. The question is one of fact and the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the right of survivorship was expressly excluded.2. The properties originally belonged to one Perayya. He died without male issue and he had no co-parceners. His estate therefore passed to his widow Rajamma. She died 25 years ago and the estate then passed to Perayya's two daughters, Viyamma and Peramma, they taking a joint daughter's estate for life. It was these ladies that divi...
(Minor) Palanivel Ramasubramania Pillay and anr., by Mother Muthammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad841; 90Ind.Cas.165
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that is raised by this appeal is whether in execution of a decree for mesne profits, the shares of the sons of the judgment-debtor, in the joint family property, are liable to be attached and sold. It is contended for the sons, that the obligation, recognised by the decree, is in respect of a debt, which it is not the pious duty of the sons, under the Hindu Law, to discharge.2. In regard to the application of the rule enunciated in the ancient Hindu Law Texts, the Courts were confronted, from time to time, with great difficulty. The bare statement of the rule is simple enough. But it was found inadequate, when it had to be applied to different and various sets of facts. The result has been want of uniformity in the interpretations, as well as the application of the rule. The large body of case-law on the subject, will show that the Judges, while theoretically seeming to accept the rule itself, have had to decide each case, on grounds, as far as possi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›