Chennai Court October 1926 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.
Vyasa Rayar Vs. Subbarayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad493
Waller, J.1. The question in this case is whether the property in suit belonged to the plaintiff, in whose name the saledeed stood, or whether it had been purchased by the defendant's father benami in the name of the plaintiff. The District Munsiff found against the theory of benami. The Subordinate Judge in a highly unsatisfactory judgment reversed this decision. I think that the appeal should be re-heard. The District Munsif in para. 14 of his judgment summed up all the salient features of the case. Hardly a single point that he made in favour of the plaintiff has been noticed or met by the Subordinate Judge. In a matter of this kind the question of motive is important. Two motives were set up on behalf of the defendants. The District Munsif has pointed out quite correctly that they were absurd. The Subordinate Judge has not touched on the question of motive at all. The District Munsif pointed out that it had not been proved that defendants's father provided the money. That was corre...
(Kattempudi) Subbiah Chetty and anr. Vs. Kanchi Narayanaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1100
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiff sues as trus tee of a chatram for a declaration that the land concerned belongs to the chatram as part of its endowment, for an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any building on the land and directing the removal of any buildings raised already and for the recovery of possession of the land from the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge and District Munsif have found that the question whether the land is the property of the chatram trust is res judicata by reason of the decision in O. S. 200 of 1925 on the District Munsif's file in which Ramanuja Rao the vendor of the defendant's vendor, sued for and obtained a decree for partition, making the present plaintiff a defendant, by which decree 1/4 of the land concerned in that suit, including the land now in question, was allotted to Ramanuja Rao and another 1/4 was allotted to the present plaintiff, the basis of that decree being that the whole property concerned was private property. I am u...
T.A. Muthuswamy Ayyer Vs. Co-operative Credit Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1928Mad210
Reilly, J.1. The case to which this suit relates appears to have come before the Assistant Registrar under the provisions contained in the second sentence of the present Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14* of the rules under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912, and Sub-rule (2) of that rule. I see no reason to think that the second sentence of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 is, as suggested for the appellant, beyond the rule making powers granted by Section 43 of the Act apart from the special provision in Sub-section (5) of that section. Moreover, it now appears from Ex. 7, a letter addressed to the appellant to the Asst. Registrar, that he himself invoked jurisdiction of the Assistant. Registrar in this matter.* The Rule No. 14 (1) is as follows:(1) In the case of a dispute touching the business of the society between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the committee or any officers, a ...
Vaysa Rayar Vs. Subbarayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.306
Waller, J.1. The question in this case is whether the property in suit belonged to the plaintiff, in whose name the sale-deed stood, or whether it had been purchased by the defendant's father benami in the name of the plaintiff. The District Munsif found against the theory of benami. The Subordinate Judge in a highly unsatisfactory judgment reversed this decision. I think that the appeal should be re-heard. The District Munsif in para. 14 of his judgment summed up all the salient features of the case. Hardly a single point that he made in favour of the plaintiff has been noticed or met by the Subordinate Judge. In a matter of this kind the question of motive is important. Two motives were set up on behalf of the defendants. The District Munsif has pointed out quite correctly that they were absurd. The Subordinate Judge has not touched on the question of motive at all. The District Munsif pointed out that it had not been proved that defendant's father provided the money. That was correc...
Kattampudi Subbia Chetty and anr. Vs. Kanchi Narayanasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.887
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiff sues as trustee of a chatram for a declaration that the land concerned belongs to the chatram as part of its endowment for an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any building on the land and directing the removal of any buildings raised already and for recovery of possession of the land from the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge and District Munsif have found that the question whether the land is the property of the chatram trust is res judicata by reason of the decision on O.S. No. 200 of 1905 on the District Munsif's file, in which Ramanuja Rao, the vendor of the defendant's vendor, sued for and obtained a decree for partition, making the present plaintiff a defendant, by which decree 1/4 of the land concerned in that suit, including the land now in question, was allotted to Ramanuja Rao and another 1/4 was allotted to the present plaintiff, the basis of that decree being that the whole property concerned was private property. I am un...
T.A. Muthuswami Iyer Vs. the Co-operative Credit Society, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.768
Reilly, J.1. The case to which this suit relates appears to have come before the Assistant Registrar under the provisions contained in the second sentence of the present Sub-rule (1) of Rule XIV of the Rules under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, and Sub-rule (2) of that rule. I see no reason to think that the second sentence of Sub-rule (1) of Rule XIV is, as suggested for the appellant, beyond the rule-making powers granted by Section 43 of the Act apart from the special provision in Sub-section (5) of that section. Moreover, it now appears from Ex. VII, a letter addressed by the appellant to the Assistant Registrar, that he himself invoked jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar in this matter.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Peria Ponnuswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad506
ORDERJackson, J.1. It is argued that restraining a horse on which a person is riding is not wrongful as defined by S. 339, I. P. C. If the moment of restraint the person is pervented from proceeding at the moment of restraint the terms ofthe sectoon are satisfied. It is no defence that he might have got off the horse, and walked in the same direction.2. The petition is dismissed....
Arokiam Asary and ors. Vs. Vavana Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad349; (1927)52MLJ135
Reilly, J.1. I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the endorsement Ex. A (2) by implication acknowledges the liability under the mortgage-deed Ex. A and so is sufficient to start a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. But Mr. Rajah Aiyar contends that this will not affect his clients, defendants 5, 6 and 9. It appears that defendant 5 obtained an othi over part of the property covered by Ex. A after the date of Ex. A: under the othi it was defendant 5's duty to pay the Government assessment on the land he failed to do so, and the land was put up to auction by the Government for arrears at the auction defendant 5 himself bought it. Mr. Rajah Aiyar points out that defendant 5 bought the land at the revenue sale free of all encumbrances and thereafter it was from the revenue sale, not from the othi, that he got his title. The sale was before the date of acknowledgment, Ex.A-2, and therefore he contends at the date of Ex. A-2 no acknowledgment made b...
(Mulukutla) Annapuramma Vs. (Mulukutla) Atchutharamayya Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1101
1. The learned District Judge has overlooked that Kashinath Prashram v. Gourava Bai [1915] 39 Bom. 248 has been overruled by Keshavlal Punjalall v. The Collector of Ahmedabad A. I. R. 1924 Bom 228 We think, we must follow the principle laid down in the matter of Desu Manavala Chetty [1910] 33 Mad. 93 and hold that petitioner is only bound to pay stamp duty for probate on the amount of the right, title and interest of the testator in the property bequeathed and so far as ancestral property is concerned that would be 1/4 of the ancestral estate. If, of course, there is other separate non-ancestral property, separate fee will have to be paid on that. There will be no order as to costs. The papers are returned to the lower Court for disposal....
Mulukutla Annapurnamma Vs. Mulukutla Atchutarammayya Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.111
1. The learned District Judge has overlooked that Kashinath Parashram v. Gourabai 28 Ind. Cas. 473 has been overruled by Keshavlal Punjalal v. Collector of Ahmeddbad 77 Ind. Cas. 749: A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 228. We think we must follow the principle laid down in In re Dasu Manavala Ghetty 4 Ind. Cas. 1064 and hold that petitioner is only bound to pay stamp duty for Probate on the amount of the right, title and interest of the testator in the property bequeathed and so far as ancestral property is concerned that would be 1/4th of the ancestral estate. If, of course, there is other separate non-ancestral property, separate fee will have to be paid on that. There will be no order as to costs. The papers are returned to the lower Court for disposal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »