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.
Sonai Karuppa Pillai and anr. Vs. Irulayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad429; (1927)52MLJ195
Curgenven, J.1. The question of law which this second appeal raises is whether a gift or gratuitous conveyance executed by a widow is voidable by a reversioner to whom she subsequently surrenders the whole estate. One Kandaswami Pillai died leaving two widows, Kaliammai and Rakkayi. The widows and Mahalingam Pillai, Kandaswami's divided brother's son, were parties to a deed of partition under which they divided Kandaswami's property in accordance with certain oral instructions which he is said to have given before he died. The document provided that Mahalingam Pillai should enjoy Schedule A property absolutely; that Kaliammai should enjoy Schedule B property till her death, when it should pass to Mahalingam; and that Rakkayi should similarly enjoy Schedule C property, with remainder to Mahalingam. Mahalingam died in 1907 and Kaliammai in 1918. In 1920, Rakkayi executed a deed of surrender to the reversioner, who has brought this suit to recover Kaliammai's and Mahalinga's shares. The p...
The Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Yadagiri Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.49; (1927)52MLJ283
Ramesam, J.1. These second appeals arise out of two suits by the Rajah of Vizianagram to resume certain lands on the ground that they are service inam lands held by the defendants as remuneration in lieu of wages for private and personal services to be rendered and therefore resumable at the will of the Zamindar. It is admitted that the suit lands were part of the assets of the Zamindari of Vizianagram, that the suit lands were granted in 1831 and therefore are what are generally known as dharmilla inam lands. But the Courts below found with reference to Exhibits I and I-A that the suit lands were burdened with service and therefore not resumable. Mr. Venkatesa Aiyangar appearing for the appellant strongly contends that the presumption is that the lands being dharmilla inam lands are resumable. In Lakhamgavda v. Keshav Annaji ILR (1901) B 305 it was held that the burden of proving resumability is on the person seeking to resume; but this principle is subject to what has been laid down ...
Nelliappa Achari and ors. Vs. Punnaivanam Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad614; 101Ind.Cas.420; (1927)52MLJ415
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The suit was brought by five persons with the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code against the head of the Mutt, Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal and his two sons, for a declaration that certain properties belong to the Parasamaya Kolarinatha Madam at Tinnevelly, that the defendants were in unlawful possession of the property and for a scheme. The defendants in their written statement denied that the properties in question were endowed for a public, religious and charitable trust or that the Madam was of a public, religious and charitable character. They alleged that the properties were the private property of the head and that from time immemorial the head of the Mutt had been treated as the administrative and disciplinary authority over the five sections of the Viswa Brahmins in the Tamil Districts of South India, Travancore, Cochin and Malabar.2...
Srinivasaraghavachariar Vs. E. Rajagopalachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ618
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The position here is that money was borrowed by a woman called Alamelu Ammal who had a limited estate in her deceased father's property to enable her to marry one of her sons, the 3rd defendant in this case. She raised that money by a mortgage and the mortgage was brought about actually by this plaintiff himself who together with his other brothers, the reversioners, had attested the document. There was plenty of evidence in this case that the husband's estate at the time was non-existent and that unless this mortgage was obtained in this way there was no other way of obtaining it. It is said that the Hindu Law does not recognise the purpose of marrying a son as one that can result in a debt binding on the estate. I prefer to avoid, the use of quasi metaphorical expression like ' necessity' which of course can only be true as applied to matters of this kind in a hyperbolical sense.! The doctrine laid down by the Privy Council has been analysed by the ...
Rajah of Vizianagram Vs. Yadagiri Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad448
Ramesam, J.1. These second appeals arise out of two suits by the Rajah of Vizianagaram to resume certain lands on the ground that they are service inam lands held by the defendants as remuneration in lieu of wages for private and personal services to be rendered and therefore resumable at the will of the Zamindar. It is admitted that the suit lands were part of the assets of the Zamindari of Vizianagram, that the suit lands were granted in 1831 and therefore are what are generally known as Dharmilla inam lands. But the Courts below found with reference to Exhibits I and I-A that the suit lands were burdened with service and therefore not resumable. Mr. Venkatesa Aiyangar appearing for the appellant strongly contends that the presumption is that the lands being dharmilla inam lands are resumable. In Lakhamgavda v. Keshav Annaji [1901] 28 Bom. 305 it was held that the burden of proving resumability is on the person seeking to resume; but this principle is subject to what has been laid do...
T.S. Kothandaram Naidu Vs. Subbier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad576; 102Ind.Cas.429; (1927)52MLJ514
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The High Court granted Probate to the plaintiff of the Will of on(c) Janaki. A caveat has been entered by the defendant who applies for the revocation of the Probate. He denies that the Will produced is that of Janaki or that she was in a sound disposing state of mind when she made that Will. The application has been registered as a suit, the person to whom Probate was issued being the plaintiff and the caveator being the defendant.2. The second issue raised in the suit is 'has the defendant no interest to support the caveat,' and this is the only issue I have tried.3. Janaki is said to be a Brahmin female who was living as the kept mistress of !the plaintiff, a Sudra. The defendant neither in his caveat filed in this Court nor in his petition filed in the District Court of South Arcot has alleged that Janaki, the testatrix, was a degraded woman. On the other hand, he appears to have treated her as an ordinary respectable woman and on that footing claimed to be h...
Obla Subbier Vs. Ramaswamy Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad643; 103Ind.Cas.90
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against first defendant and his minor son second defendant. The second defendant then brought O. S. No. 50 of 1920 in the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Taluk pleading that the mortgage debt was for improper purposes and therefore not binding upon him, also that he was not properly represented in the suit and praying for a declaration that the decree was not binding upon him. The District Munsif found that the second defendant's guardian-ad-litem had never consented to act and granted the prayer that the decree was not binding. The plaintiff then applied successfully to have the suit reopened as against second defendant with a proper guardian. Both lower Courts have found on the rehearing that the debt was not binding upon second defendant inasmuch as it was only justified as being for trade, and-there was no proof that this is a trading family. The plaintiff appeals and attacks this finding mainly on...
Sundara Reddy Vs. Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad818
JUDGEMENTJackson, J.1. The appellant (Missing text)lent a cooly Rs. 26 and got him and his son to execute a bond that in order to discharge the interest on this amount, the latter would work for him at Rs 2 8-0, a month. He obtained a year's work from the son and now sues for the principal and Rs. 34 by way of interest.2. The District Munsif works out the rate of interest at about Rs. 175 per annum; so the year's service afforded the appellant handsome remuneration.3. The lower Courts have found that the contract was opposed to public policy and I agree. Whether the bond in question is exactly of the nature of a slavery bond, or is something closely approaching that nature does not affect the matter; for in either case it is equally opposed to public policy. If following Anandiram v. Gozhakachari [1918] 27 C. L. J. 459 it is held that one of the parties to the bond was left free to earn money in order to pay back the principal, thus distinguishing the case from Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bans...
Sundara Reddi Vs. Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1926
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.96
Jackson, J.1. The appellant lent a cooly Rs. 26 and got him and his son to execute a bond that in order to discharge the interest on this amount the latter would work for him at Rs. 2-8-6 a month. He obtained a year's work from the son and now he sues for the principal and Rs. 34 by way of interest.2. The District Munsif works out the rate of interest at about Rs. 175 per annum so the year's service afforded the appellant handsome remuneration.3. The lower Courts have found that the contract was opposed to public policy and I agree. Whether the bond in question is exactly of the nature of a slavery bond, or is something closely approaching that nature does not affect the matter, for in either case it is equally opposed to public policy. If, following Anandiram Mandal v. Goza Kachori 45 Ind. Cas. 965 : 27 Cri.L.J. 459 it is held that one of the parties to the bond was left free to earn money in order to pay back the principal, thus distinguishing the case from Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi ...
thevar Avergal Vs. C. Srirama Desikam Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ309
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. C.R.P. No. 839 of 1926 has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad in O.P. No. 2 of 1926, setting aside the election held on 5th March 1925, for filling up two vacancies which were about to arise in the membership of the Sivakasi Taluq Board and directing' a fresh election to be held. The present 1st respondent is the person who filed O.P. No. 2 of 1926 in the Lower Court. The present petitioner was the 1st respondent in the said O.P. As a result of the election held on 5th March, 1925 the present petitioner and the 5th respondent were declared to have been duly elected. The sole ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge has set aside the election is the non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 5(a) of the Revised Rules for the Conduct of Elections of Members of Taluq and. Union Boards.2. That rule is worded thus: On completion of the scrutiny of nominations and after expiry of the period within which candidatures may be withdrawn und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »