Chennai Court August 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.
Poovanalingam Servai Vs. Veerayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad186
Phillips, J.1. In this case, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant jointly purchased the suit property, the 1st defendant paying Rg. 340, and the second defendant Rs. 60, the understanding being that each was to have half the property and the excess money paid by the 1st defendant was on behalf of the 2nd defendant and repayable by him. The 1st defendant subsequently redeemed a usufructuary mortgage on the land and paid the whole of the mortgage money and took possession. Just prior to this redemption, the plaintiff bought the 2nd defendant's share in the property and now brings this suit for redemption of his share of the usufructuary mortgage and for partition and for delivery of possession; of his separate share.2. The second appeal has been argued at very great length on the assumption that this is a pure redemption suit, but this overlooks the fact that it is in effect and in name a partition suit, for the plaintiff seeks to recover a demarcated half share of the suit property. ...
Payida Ramakrishnayya and ors. Vs. Barrey Nagarazu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad152
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The plaintiffs and defendants were co-sharers of certain property on which certain dues had to be paid to the zemindar. The plaintiffs purchased the defendants' portion and paid the dues to the zamindar for the whole property. They now claim to recover from the defendants that portion of the dues payable for the share of the defendants.2. The defendants, after the purchase by the plaintiffs of their share, remained in possession of the property. Clearly, therefore, the defendants were in the position of trespassers. The plaintiffs, in order to entitle them to reimbursement, rely upon Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act and state that since they paid the dues payable by the defendants as well, they are entitled to get back that amount. For the application of Section 69, it is necessary to show that the defendants are the persons bound in law to pay. Prom what I have already said, it would appear that the defendants are trespasser...
Mahomed Bi Bi Vs. N.P. Sulaiman Ahmed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1110
Srinivasa Aiyanger, J.1. This is a suit by the daughter of a deceased Mahomedan for the administration of his estate and for a partition of the properties pertaining to his estate amongst the sharers and heirs under the Mahomedan Law.2. Incidentally a number of difficult and doubtful questions are raised with regard to certain instruments executed by the deceased. For the present purpose the documents which are sought to be set aside as invalid and not binding on the heirs and sharers of the deceased are a registered wakfnama dated the 1st January 1921, and a number of deeds of settlement of property in trust for charities. It would be convenient to deal with the latter at once.3. The deeds are admitted by the plaintiff but it has been argued that, though these deeds were duly executed and registered, they were not acted upon by the deceased and, therefore, they ought not to be recognized or given effect to. Such a plea I construe merely as meaning that these were sham deeds which the ...
K. Venkat Reddiar and Co. Vs. Desikachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1279; 92Ind.Cas.354
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff's suit was to recover principal and interest on account of dealings carried on between him and the defendant from the 22nd May 1916 to the 10th of December 1922. The plaintiff has been given a decree for Rs. 196 but he has not been awarded interest on that amount. The question in this case is whether the lower Court was wrong in refusing 'interest' to the petitioner. Interest is claimed under the Interest Act and on general principles of law.2. In view of the finding that there was no demand for interest by the plaintiff, the plea that he is entitled to interest under the interest Act cannot be accepted.3. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on general principles of law. It is well-known that under the rules of English Common Law, interest is not due on money, unless interest was intended to be paid or unless it is implied from the usage of trade, as in the case of mercantile instruments. ...
Pooranalingam Servai Vs. Veerayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1055
Phillips, J.1. In this case the first; defendant and second defendant jointly purchased the suit property, the first defendant paying Rs. 34(J, and the second defendant Rs. 60, the understanding being that each was to have half the property and the excess money paid by the first defendant was on behalf of the second defendant and re-payable by him. The first defendant subsequently redeemed a usufructuary mortgage on the land and paid the whole of the mortgage-money and took possession. Just prior to this redemption, the plaintiff bought the second defendant's share in the property and now brings this suit for redemption of his share of the usufructuary mortgage and for partition, and for delivery of possession of his separate share.2. The second appeal has been argued at very great length on the assumption that this is a pure redemption suit, but this overlooks the fact that it is in effect and in name a partition suit, for the plaintiff seeks to recover a demarcated half share of the ...
Narayanaswami Pillai Vs. Gopalakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad112; 92Ind.Cas.483; (1926)50MLJ48
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sued defendant for Rs. 95 for fireworks supplied to defendant as trustee of a temple. The District Munsif found the claim to be true, but unsuited plaintiff on the ground that defendant was no longer trustee and the temple was liable. Plaintiff seeks to have the decree reversed. Defendant may have his remedy against the trust, but it cannot be said that he is absolved from all liability to plaintiff by the mere fact that he has ceased to be trustee. ' Such a trustee has got his personal credit to pledge and the presumption should be that when he incurred a debt without charging the trust properties, the creditor lent the money on such personal credit.' The principle would apply to an ordinary trustee who is not a sanyasi, Lakshmindrathirtha Swamiar v. K. Raghavendra Rao I.L.R. (1920) M. 795. In Sundaresan Chettiar v. Viswa-nadha Pundara Sannadhi I.L.R. (1922) M. 703 it is shown that the proper decree in. cases of this sort is a decree for payment by the defendan...
Rao Bahadur M.R. Ry. M.R. Govinda Row, Avl. (Trustee of Piranmalai, Et ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad193; (1925)49MLJ640
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the Manager of the Piranmalai Devasthanam and he sues to recover rent in respect of certain lands belonging to the Devasthanam which were granted on a permanent lease at a favourable rent by one of his predecessors. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation because the starting point of limitation under Article 134 is the date of the transfer which in the present case was more than 12 years before suit. He has come to this conclusion on the ground that the lease was void ab initio as the trustee of the Devasthanam had do right to grant a permanent lease of the trust properties and that therefore the period started from the date of the lease. The appeal was also opposed by the respondent on the ground that the lease was justifiable under Section 26 of the Estates Land Act, that is to say, because it was a lease granted for the purpose of bringing waste land into cultivation. Although the lease recites that this ...
In Re: Pokala Mahalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad567; 94Ind.Cas.337; (1926)50MLJ114
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner applied for leave to prefer an appeal in this Court from the decree of the District Court, Chingleput, in forma pauperis. Her petition was sent to the District Judge for enquiry whereupon the judgment-debtor (she herself has obtained a decree for maintenance and is appealing for a larger amount) paid Rs. 571 (Rupees Five hundred and seventy-one) into Court to her credit. The District Judge passed an order allowing her to draw out the money, and reported that she had means to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 200 (Rupees Two hundred) on her appeal. To this report she objects. Of course Rs. 571 (Rupees Five hundred and seventy-one) is the subject-matter of the suit, though not of the appeal, but this causes no difficulty because it has been ruled in Krishna Bai v. Manohar I.L.R. (1906) 30 Bom 593 that 'the subject-matter of the suit' in Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, does not qualify 'sufficient means' and the subject-matter of the suit is excluded as b...
Rao Bahadur M.N. Govinda Rao Avergal Trustee Piranmalai Etc. Devasthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.377
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the manager of the Piranmalai Devasthanam and he sues to recover rent in respect of certain lands belonging to the Devasthanam, which were granted on a permanent lease at a favourable rent by one of his predecessors. The lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation because the starting point of limitation under Article 134 is the date of the transfer which in the present case was more than 12 years before suit. He has come to this conclusion on the ground that the lease was void ab initio as the trustee of the Devasthanam had no right to grant a permanent, lease of the trust properties and that, therefore, the period started from the date of the lease. The appeal was also opposed by the respondent on the ground that the lease was justifiable under Section 26 of the Estates Land Act, that is to say, because it was a lease granted for the purpose of bringing waste land into cultivation. Although the lease recites that t...
Official Receiver of Cuddapah Vs. Kalawa Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad403
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff sued 1st defendant for maintenance; her pauper petition as plaint is dated 15th July 1920. About a month later 1st defendant filed an insolvency petition and was adjudicated insolvent on 24th January 1921.2. Both the lower Courts have found the plaintiff entitled to maintenance and they have charged it upon property in the hands of the Official Receiver who by way of abundant caution was added as 3rd defendant. The Official Receiver appeals on the following grounds:3. (1) In the first place, until she obtains a decree the plaintiff has no charge upon the property such as would give her priority over other creditors. This is conceded, but it is contended that inasmuch as plaintiff had filed her suit before the insolvency proceedings commenced she is entitled to establish her rights independently of those proceedings; and if the Courts thought good to allow and to decree her prayer for a charge upon the property, the proceedings subsequent to her institution o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »