Chennai Court November 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.
Peria Koil Kelvi Appan Govinda Ramanuja Pedda Jeeyangarlavaru Vs. Kada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad398; (1927)52MLJ161
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against an order of Curgenven, J., in C.M.P. No. 3375 of 1926 in which the learned Judge directed stay of execution of a decree by suspending the injunction which had been decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor in O.S. No. 23 of 1919.2. The respondent took a preliminary objection that no appeal lies, and we heard a good deal of argument on the matter into which I do not propose to go at length. It cannot be denied that the practice of this Court has been to allow a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of a single Judge of this Court in matters of stay of execution pending the disposal of ' an appeal in the Court. Mr. Venkatachariar, however, for the respondent contended that the pronouncement of the Privy, Council in a case reported in Sevak Jeranchod Bhogilal v. The Dakore Temple Committee (1925) 49 MLJ 25 (PC). implies that the practice of this Court is not justified in law. In that case the Judicial Committee remarked at the end of their judgment, r...
Minor Yegnanarayana Aiyar and ors. Vs. Suppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ224
Waller, J.1. The appeal raises a somewhat difficult question of law. The plaintiff owed money to defendant 1 who was conducting a chit fund, on a deed of mortgage. It is common ground that he paid to defendant 1 on 5th July, 1919 a sum of Rs. 3,500. His case shortly is this: That defendant 1, who had a decree against his father-in-law, asked him to discharge it and that they eventually agreed that the contract rate of interest on the mortgage should be reduced and that the balance of the above sum of Rs. 3,500 should be directed to discharging the decree, which was to be assigned to the plaintiff. An endorsement was made on the deed of mortgage to the effect that it had been fully discharged by a final payment of Rs. 1,500 although much more was due. Defendant 1, however, failed to assign the decree and the plaintiff accordingly brought a suit to recover Rs. 1,500 odd, which was the amount due on the decree. Defendant 1 denied the alleged agreement. The Trial Court found against the ag...
F.G. Natesa Aiyar and ors. Vs. Kaja Maruf Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad489; (1927)52MLJ295
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal in a land acquisition matter as between the landlord and the persons who claimed the land under him under a permanent lease. The actual appellant is said to be a purchaser from a purchaser of the permanent lease. The case has come before the Courts because the parties did not agree to the apportionment between them of the compensation awarded which came to about Rs. 1,400 and odd. Out of this the Subordinate Judge has granted about 2|3 to the permanent tenants and about a third to the landlord. Now it is very strongly contended before us by Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar for the permanent tenants that the landlord is only entitled to have a capitalised value of the Rs. 4 rent payable by the permanent tenant to the landlord for the land and therefore the amount given to him should be reduced to Rs. 80 taking the capitalisation at 20 years' purchase the balance should be given to the permanent tenants. The right of the parties really depend upon the document exec...
Obala Nagendra Aiyar and anr. Vs. Thumatti Muthia Bhagavathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.93; (1927)52MLJ303
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by five plaintiffs, members of a certain firm called N.A.P. S.R.N. Venkatarama Aiyar and Co., to recover certain amounts due from the defendants who are the partners of another firm known as T.M.R. S. Muthia Bhagavathar and Co. The District Munsif gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the appellants before me. The other plaintiffs have been made respondents.2. The facts of the case will now be stated. One Perumal Aiyar, whose widow is the 4th plaintiff and daughter-in-law is the 5th plaintiff, and the 2nd defendant Rangaiyar are the members of the firm N.A.P. S.R.N. While that firm was going on the 2nd defendant wanted to start another firm. But as the new firm would require some capital he arranged that the N.A.P. S.R.N. firm should lend up to the limit of Rs. 1,000 to the new firm to enable it to carry on its business. It was agreed that at the ...
Vasireddi Veeramma Vs. Marupudi Butchaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.379; (1927)52MLJ381
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Lower Court holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's plaint and returning it for presentation to the proper Court of The point at issue is one of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff's husband was adopted to one Ramaswami. 12 items of property are scheduled in the plaint, of which No. 1 is said to be in possession of the plaintiff, No. 2 was alienated by Ramaswami's widow and Nos. 3 to 10 had been alienated by the plaintiff herself. Item 11 is a vacant site and item 12 a channel. The cause of action is that the alienees from the plaintiff have been sued by the 1st defendant to recover the items alienated by plaintiff on the footing that there had been no such adoption and that 1st defendant has got a decree. Plaintiff was not a party to that suit but the alienees are now threatening to enforce against her indemnity clauses in their favour and therefore s...
Enni Sooranna Vs. Varabati Varahalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad708
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant before us. He claims to be an illatom son-in-law of one Ramanna. Ramanna died in 1901, leaving two sons, Sanyasi and Appalaswami, and three daughters, Appanna. Nilamma, and Ammanna. Sanyasi died a few months after his father in the year 1902. Appalaswami died in 1918 leaving the plaintiff in this suit, his widow.2. The 2nd defendant, who is the appellant before us first married Appanna, the eldest daughter of Ramanna, and after she died he married Ammanna, another daughter of Ramanna, who is the third defendant in the suit. Ramanna's widow is the 1st defendant in the suit.3. The case for the plaintiff is that, on the death of Sanyasi the properties of the family devolved on her husband Appalaswami, and after Appalaswami's death she is solely entitled to them and she sues for the recovery of these properties. The 2nd defendant, on the other hand, contended that he was the illatom son-in-law of Ramanna, that he lived with Ramann...
Ohla Nagendrier and anr. Vs. Thoomathi Muthiah Bagavathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1096
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the suit by five plaintiffs members of a certain firm called N. A. P. S. R. M. Venkatarama Aiyar & Co., to recover certain amounts due from the defendants who are the partners of another firm known as T. M. R. S. Muthiah Bagavathar & Co. The District Munsif gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the appellants before me. The other plaintiffs had been made respondents.2. The facts of the case will now be stated. One Perumal Aiyar, whose widow is the 4th plaintiff and daughter-in-law is plaintiff 5, and defendant 2 Ranga Aiyar are the members of the firm N. A. P. S. R. M. While that firm was going on, defendant 2 wanted to start another firm. But as the new firm would require some capital he arranged that the N. A. P. S. R. M. firm should lend up to the limit of Rs. 1,000, to the new firm to enable it to carry on its business. It was agreed that at the end...
Yegnanarayana Ayyar and ors. Vs. Suppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.54
Waller, J.1. The appeal raises a somewhat difficult question of law. The plaintiff owed money to defendant No. 1 who was conducting a chit-fund, on a deed of mortgage. It is common ground that he paid to defendant No. 1 on 5th July 1919, a sum of Rs. 3,500. His case, shortly, is this:--that defendant No. 1 who had a decree against his father-in-law asked him to discharge it and that they eventually agreed that the contract rate of interest on the mortgage should be reduced and that the balance of the above sum of Rs. 3,500 should be directed to discharging the decree, which was to be assigned to the plaintiff. An endorsement was made on the deed of mortgage to the effect that it had been fully discharged by a final payment of Rs. 1,500 although much more was due. Defendant No. 1, however, failed to assign the decree and the plaintiff accordingly brought a suit to recover Rs. 1,500 odd, which was the amount due on the decree. Defendant No. 1 denied the alleged agreement. The trial Court...
Emi Sooramma Vs. Yarabati Varahalu, Minor, by Next Friend Karini Kumar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.828
1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant before us. He claims to be an illatom son-in-law of one Ramanna. Ramanna died in 1901 leaving two sons, Sanyasi and Appalaswami and three daughters Appamma, Nilamma and Amani. Sanyasi died a few months after his father in the year 1902. Appalaswami died in 1918 leaving the plaintiff in this suit, his widow.2. The 2nd defendant, who is the appellant before us first married Appamma, the eldest daughter of Ramanna, and after she died she married Ammanna, another daughter of Ramanna, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit. Ramanna's widow is the 1st defendant in the suit.3. The case for the plaintiff is that on the death of Sanyasi the properties of the family devolved on her husband, Appalaswami and after Appalaswami's death she is solely entitled to them and she sues for the recovery of these properties. The 2nd defendant, on the other hand, contended that he was the illatom son-in-law of Ramanna, that he lived with Ramanna and helped him in the acquis...
Giriya Shetti Vs. Anathamma Shettithi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ222
Curgenven, J.1. The first defendant's husband, a mulgeni lessee, fell into arrear and the plaintiff's vendor, who was the landholder, instituted a suit for the rent and obtained a decree in execution of which the 2nd defendant, who now prefers this second appeal, purchased the lease. The proclamation of sale was dated the 23rd August, 1920, and the sale itself was held on the 13th November, 1920. The suit under which the sale was held was for arrears of rent for the year 1918-1919, ending with the 31st March, 1919. At the time of this sale, a further year's rent, that is for 1919-1920, had already fallen due and the plaintiff has now sued the 2nd defendant, as present lessee, for this amount.2. The defence with which I am concerned is that the existence of the arrear of rent for the suit year was not disclosed in the sale proclamation. That proclamation was prepared by the plaintiff's vendor and no satisfactory explanation has been given why the arrear of rent was not shown there, in s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »