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.
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Muthurama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ94
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 (SubMagistrate and Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore in C.C. No. 108 and C.A. No. 66 of 1924) for criminally misappropriating an agricultural engine valued at Rs. 2,000. Admittedly he borrowed this engine under Exhibit A. from his relation Muthurama Reddi, P.W. 1, who says that he was looking after it for the real owner Muthuveera Reddi, P.W. 4. The petitioner says that he also had a lease of the engine from Muthurama Reddi, Ex. II, which the Lower Appellate Court seems prepared to concede, para. 4. The alleged breach of trust was (he sale of this engine by petitioner to his aunt, the wife of Muthurama Reddi's brother, D.W. 1. This witness says that the engine is family property. He is disbelieved but unless the Lower Courts accepted some theory of a family quarrel, it is difficult to understand why they inflicted such paltry sentences. The Sub-Magistrate fined the petitioner Rs. 100 which the Sub-divisional Magistrate reduce...
Periaswami Nainar Vs. Kandasami Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1128
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Appeal by defendant 3 against the decree of the Court of the District Judge, South Arcot, in O. S. No. 25 of 1919. The suit was one of partition. One Samudraja Nainar left three sons, Chinnathambi Nainar, Muthu Nainar and Kandasami Nainar. Defendant 1 (deceased) is the son of Kandaswami and plaintiff is the son of defendant 1. Chinnathambi Nainar had two sons, Periaswami Nainar and Chinnayya Nainar. Defendant 2 is the son of Periaswami Nainar, defendant 3 is the son of Chinnayya Nainar. Defendant 5 is the widow of Chinnayya Nainar, and defendant 4 is the widow of a brother of defendant 1. The case set up by the plaintiff was that Chinnathambi Nainar and Kandasami Nainar were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family; that after their death their sons continued to be members of a joint and undivided Hindu family, that the family owned the moveable and immoveable properties detailed in the schedule attached to the plaint:that these properties were acquired by ...
Pasumarti Seethanna Vs. Thammandra Yasikalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad117
Phillips, J.1. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff committed default in respect of a contract to purchase 1501 bags of rice from the first defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 in advance and the lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to return of this money after deducting certain sums which the defendant is entitled to retain. The 2nd defendant (widow of first defendant) now appeals and contends that she is entitled to retain the whole Rs. 6,000 on the ground that it was paid as deposit. This question of whether it was paid as a deposit has not been raised in either of the lower Courts ; but the appellant relies on certain cases for the proposition that whenever money is paid in advance on account of a contract, the vendor is entitled on breach of contract to retain the whole sum. That is the effect of the rulings cited where the money has been paid as deposit. In Roshan Lal v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. (1911) 33 All. 166 w...
Nomula Ramayya Vs. Nadipineni Appayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad362
Phillips, J.1. The main question at issue in this appeal is whether a document marked as Ex. J., is admissible in evidence. The District Munsif rejected the document, but it has been admitted by the Subordinate Judge. On the 9th October 1918, the 2nd defendant executed a sale-deed, Ex. H. in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the lands sold in some execution proceedings but his claim was dismissed, and therefore, he had brought this suit to declare his right under the sale-deed. Defendants 2 and 3 contend that the sale to the plaintiff was a purely nominal transaction which was not intended to take effect and in order to prove this, they rely on this document Ex. J. The plaintiff says, amongst other things : ' I am entitled only to money not to lands.' This recital was made almost immediately after the sale-deed for the lands had been executed in plaintiff's favour. I cannot possibly conceive that, if the plaintiff had really purchased those lands, he would have made this s...
Namula Ramayya Vs. Nadipineni Appayya Alias Syamabrayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.452
Phillips, J.1. The main question at issue in this appeal is whether a document marked as Ex. J is admissible in evidence. The District Munsif rejected the document but it has been admitted by the Subordinate Judge. On the 9th October 1918 the second defendant executed a sale-deed, Ex. H. in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the lands sold in some execution proceedings but his claim was dismissed, and, therefore, he has brought this suit to declare his right under the sale deed. Defendants 2 and 3 contend that the sale to the plaintiff was a purely nominal transaction which was not intended to take effect and in order to prove this, they rely on this document Ex. J. The plaintiff says, amongst other things, 'I am entitled only to money, not to lands'. This recital was made almost immediately after the sale-deed for the lands had been executed in plaintiff's favour. I cannot possibly conceive that, if the plaintiff had really purchased those lands, he would have made this st...
Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Ramaveerapandian Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.765
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the District Munsif ought to have stayed the suit when he was informed that the defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent. The contention of Mr. Desikan for the appellant is that the Court ought to have done so under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That section gives an option to the Court to continue a suit on such terms as the Court may impose. In this case, the Court did not impose any terms, nor did it direct the plaintiff to make the Official Receiver a party. When a party has been adjudicated an insolvent the Court would be well-advised in directing the other party to the suit to bring on record the Official Receiver as a party, and if the Official Receiver is unwilliug to become a party, then the Court may proceed with the suit on such terms as it may impose upon the party wishing to proceed with the suit. This has not been done by the District Munsif. But I do not think that this has in any way vitiated the ju...
Neelam Venkataratnamma Vs. Venjamoori Varaha Narasimhacharyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad191; (1925)49MLJ756
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 84 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada, O.S. No. 32 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Cocanada.2. Plaintiff sues for certain portions of a house site. Both Courts dismissed his suit and plaintiff appeals.3. Issue 2, whether plaintiff was in possession within twelve years prior to suit, is a question of fact on which both Courts find against plaintiff ; and he only seeks to traverse that finding in this second appeal by urging that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in accepting as evidence the unregistered gift deed, Ex. V. There is no doubt that Ex. V is a transaction affecting an interest in immoveable property and as such cannot be received in evidence unless it is registered. The Subordinate Judge, however, relying upon Vdrada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal ILR (1919) M 244 has admitted the document for the purpose of proving that possession was adverse. In the reported...
Chandayya Hegde Vs. Kaveri Hegadthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad189; 92Ind.Cas.390; (1925)49MLJ727
Phillips, J.1. These three suits are brought for maintenance against the first defendant who is the ejman of the Aliyasantana family to which the plaintiffs belong. Separate maintenance is claimed in all three suits on the ground that the defendant had refused to maintain the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have found that this case is untrue and that there was no refusal by the defendant to maintain the family but both the Courts have given a decree for maintenance. The lower Appellate Court has held that 'defendant and the plaintiffs are not moving well and that a joint mess in the family house has become extremely inconvenient' and on that ground has awarded separate maintenance. The right of a member of an Alayasantana family for maintenance in the tarwad house is undoubted and under certain circumstances he is entitled to separate maintenance outside. It has been held that when a wife goes to live with her husband or when a husband goes to live with his wife in a separate house, they ...
Neelam Venkataratanamma Vs. Vinjamoori Varaha Narasimha Charu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.470
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 84 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in O.S. No. 32 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Cocanada.2. Plaintiff sues for certain portions of a house-site. Both Courts dismissed his suit and plaintiff appeals.3. Issue No. II. Whether plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to suit, is a question of fact on which both Courts find against plaintiff; and he only seeks to traverse that finding in this second appeal by urging that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in accepting as evidence the unregistered gift deed Ex. V. There is no doubt that Ex V is a transaction affecting an interest in immoveable property and as such cannot be received in evidence unless it is registered. The Subordinate Judge, however, relying upon Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal 46 I.A. 285 : 2 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 64 : 22 Bom. L.R. 444 has admitted the document for the purpose of proving that po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›