Chennai Court July 1925 Judgments
Shiva Aithala Vs. Rangappaya Aithala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad233; (1925)49MLJ719
Jackson, J.1. The short point in this second appeal is, who is to defray the funeral expenses when a widow dies being a member of a divided Hindu family, and not being in enjoyment of any self-acquired property by her husband, the widow being maintained by her husband's nephew and great-nephew earn of whom contributed half. The Lower Courts have ruled that they should pay for her funeral in like proportion and this seems logical and equitable. If the family were not divided they would pay at this rate. There is no direct authority on the point, but Sir E.J. Trevelyan has deduced a similar rule from such authority as exists. See Hindu Law, 2nd Edition, page 88. I see no force in the contention that the relation who performs the ceremony under Hindu Law must necessarily pay for it. In a joint family the son does not pay for the funeral of his father. Accordingly I confirm the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.2. The respondent files a Memorandum of Ob...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narasimha Mudali and anr. Vs. Potti Narayanaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ720
Jackson, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 282 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed their suit and plaintiffs appeal.2. AChetty firm contracted with a Mudali firm to supply the Mudali firm with twenty-five bales of yarn (Exs. 'A and A-1). On 24th October, 1918, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. II cancelling the contract because the supply had been irregular. The Chetty firm not accepting this cancellation gave notice of suit ; and in due course filed O.S. No. 27 of 1919 in the Court of the District Munsif of Chittoor. The matter was referred to arbitration and apparently settled by award, but the award is not in evidence. Then on 9th December, 1919, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. D to the Chetty's firm that under the previous contract they were still bound to supply them with 111/2. bales, and if these wer...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramanathan Ghettiar and ors. Vs. Kanagasabapathy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad500; 94Ind.Cas.955
1. In the former of these appeals Defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants, but Mr. T. Rangachariar informed us that he is only instructed to appear for the 4th defendant and we have consequently heard no argument on behalf of the 2nd defendant. In A.S. No. 80, 5th defendant is the appellant and appears by Mr. G.S. Venkatachariar. The suits were brought by certain worshippers in the temple of Sri Minakshi Sundareswaral and other connected temples comprised in what is commonly known as the ' Madura etc., Devasthanams.' In the suit to which A.S. No. 54 relates the principal prayer was sfor removing the defendants from their respective offices. A.S. 80 is an appeal from the same decree by one of the defendants (Defendant No. 5) in that suit. It is of some importance to describe the defendants ; 1st defendant is one Kuppusami Mudaliar, the Manager of the Sri Minakshi Sundareswaral temple.' The other defendants are or were members of the Committee of the said Temple. The 2nd defendant, A. Rama...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narasimha Mudali and anr. Vs. Potti Narayanasami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.333
Jackson, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 282 of 1921, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chittor, preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1920, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur. Both the lower Courts have dismissed their suit and plaintiffs appeal.2. A Chetti firm contracted with a Mudali firm to supply the Mudali firm with twenty-five bales of yarn: Exs. A and A-1. On 24th October 1918, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. If cancelling the contract because the supply had been irregular. The Chetti firm not accepting this cancellation gave notice of suit and in due course filed O. S. No. 27 of 1919 in the Court of the District Munsif of Chittor. The matter was referred to arbitration and apparently settled by award, but the award is not in evidence. Then on 9th December 1919, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. D to the Chettis that under the previous contract they were still bound to supply them with 11 bales, and if these were not supplie...
Tag this Judgment!Alagirisami Pillai Vs. Lakshmanan Chetty Alias Samuel Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ79
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Before dealing with the questions of law raised, I shall briefly set forth the facts.2. Lakshmanan Chetty entered into a partition with his coparceners under the deed of division dated 9th February, 1918. A sum of money fell to his share and this sum was retained under the terms of that deed with his brother Ramalinga Chetty. The appellant filed a suit for money (O.S. No 495 of 1919) against Lakshmanan and attached before judgment the debt due to him under the partition deed. The appellant on 3rd July, 1919, obtained a decree in his suit. Lakshmanan some time after this filed a suit against Ramalinga (O.S. No. 772 of 1920) for recovery of the money due to him under the partition deed and obtained a decree. Lakshmanan and Ramalinga within a month of this decree entered into a settlement and Lakshmanan reported satisfaction which was recorded.3. The decree was obtained by Lakshmanan in O.S. No. 772 of 1920 on the 2nd February, 1921, satisfaction was entered on 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!Sinna Karuppan and ors. Vs. R.M.P.S. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad178
Phillips, J.1. All these suits ware filed in four batches by the plaintiffs, the first being filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court on the Small Cause Side. The Subordinate Judge held that the suits were not of a Small Cause nature and that they should be filed either on the Original Side or else in the Revenue Court. The alternative was given for the reason that the plaintiffs claimed both varams and it was held that if they were entitled to both varams, the suits would lie in a Civil Court. Whereas, if they were not entitled to both the varams, the suits would lie only in a Revenue Court. The suits were accordingly filed in the Civil Court on the Original Side. The question was then determined and it was found that the plaintiffs did not possess both the varams and the plaint was returned to the Ravanua Court. The only question which arises here is one of limitation, i.e., whether the time taken for prosecuting these suits in the Small Cause Court and the Civil Court (Original Side) ...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnakaruppan and ors. Vs. R.M.P.S. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.373
Phillips, J.1. All these suits were filed in four batches by the plaintiffs, the first being filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court on the Small Cause side. The Subordinate Judge held that the suits were not of a small cause nature and that they should be filed either on the original side or else in the Revenue Court. The alternative was given for the reason that the plaintiffs claimed both warams, and it was held that if they were entitled to both warams, the suits would lie in a Civil Court whereas if they were not entitled to both the warams, the suits would lie only in a Revenue Court. The suits were accordingly filed in the Civil Court on the original side. The question was then determined and it was found that the plaintiffs did not possess both the warams and the plaint was returned to the Revenue Court. The only question which arises here is one of limitation, i.e., whether the time taken for prosecuting these suits in the Small Cause Court and the Civil Court (original side) s...
Tag this Judgment!Alagirisami Pillai Vs. Laksmanan Chetty Alias Samuel Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad371; 92Ind.Cas.1021
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Before dealing with the questions of law raised, I shall briefly set forth the facts.2. Lakshmana Chetty entered into a partition with his co-parceners, under the deed of division dated 9th February 1918. A sum of money fell to his share and this sum was retained under the terms of that deed with his brother Ramalinga Chetty. The appellant filed a suit for money (O.S. No. 495 of 1919) against Lakshmana and attached before judgment the debt due to him under the partition deed. The appellant on 3rd July 1919 obtained a decree in his suit. Lakshmana sometime after this filed a suit against Ramalinga Chetty (O.S. No. 772 of 1920) for recovery of the money due to him under the partition deed and obtained a decree. Lakshmana and Ramalinga within a month of this decree entered into a settlement and Lakshmana reported satisfaction which was recorded.3. The decree was obtained by Lakshmana in O.S. No. 772 of 1920, on 2nd February 1921. Satisfaction was entered on 2nd Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Karnam Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Adinarayana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad227; (1926)50MLJ46
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Anantapur in A.S. No 97 of 1921 on appeal from that of the District Munsif of Anantapur in O.S. No. 20 of 1920. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he and defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the nearest reversioners to inherit the property of the late Ramappa and to recover possession of a quarter of the immoveable property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Both the Lower Courts dismissed his suit.2. The first point for consideration is that taken by the learned Judge in his fourth paragraph whether the property shown in the title deed - Ex. G-I - is the absolute property of Savitriamma or whether she only enjoyed a Hindu widow's estate in that property. The title deed - Ex. G-1 - is perfectly clear: 'The inam is now confirmed to you in freehold; in other words, the inam will be your own absolute property.' 'You' and 'your' referring to the six persons in the register, Ex. D-2, and the first of these s...
Tag this Judgment!Yoodara Sobhanadri Vs. Challagula Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.309
Reilly, J.1. The only question argued for petitioner is whether the payment shown by the endorsement, Ex. A-21, saves limitation. The very amount of that payment, Rs. 900 is clear indication that part of it was towards interest as the original principal was only Rs. 800. The evidence shows that P.W. No. 1 who made the payment was defendant's agent duly authorised to make the payment. There does not appear to be anything in the suggestion that P.W. No. 1 did not follow the exact authority given to him by defendant in the matter. The payment clearly saves limitation.3. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »