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.
Koduru Venku Reddi and anr. Vs. Magunta Venku Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad471; (1927)52MLJ387
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgments about to be delivered by my learned brothers. I agree with them and have nothing to add.Krishnan, J.2. The question referred in this case to the Full Bench is 'where a father or a managing member of a joint Hindu family contracts a simple debt and then there is a partition among the members of the family, can the creditor proceed against the property allotted to the other members for such a debt?' When the appellant opened his case in the Full Bench it was found that the question formulated did not properly arise and it was decided that it need not be considered but that the whole second appeal should be treated as before the Full Bench for disposal. We have thus heard arguments in the second appeal.3. The second appeal arises in a suit brought by a Hindu son against his father and his two younger brothers, defendants 1 to 3, for a partition of their joint family property and the delivery over to him of hi...
The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund, Ltd. Vs. A.N. Sabapathi Chetti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad894; (1927)53MLJ272
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises a question of law of some importance. The plaintiff-Fund seeks to enforce an equitable mortgage. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant, and they form members of an undivided Hindu family. On the 27th of March, 1920, the defendants executed in favour of the plaintiff-Fund a promissory note for Rs. 9,000 agreeing to repay the sum, on demand, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum. The defendants deposited with the Fund the title-deeds of the house described in the plaint with a view re create an equitable mortgage over the property. On the 7th of December, 1920, they borrowed from the plaintiff a further sum of Rs. 600 and executed another promissory note with terms similar to those contained in the first note. They agreed that the property already mortgaged should be treated as security for this further loan.2. The 1st defendant is a share-holder of the plaintiff-Fund, and the terms on which the Fund can make loans are governed and ...
(Vadamalai Tiruvanatha) Sevuga Pandia thevar Avergal Vs. C. Srirama De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad546; 101Ind.Cas.100
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 noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 5 (a) of the Revised Rules for the Conduct of Elections of Members of Taluq and Union Boards.2. The rule is worded thus:On completion of the scrutiny of nominations and after expiry of the period within which candidatures may be withdrawn un...
Kuppuswami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Bavaswami Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad538
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The decree of the lower Court directs that the suit lands shall be partitioned into four equal shares and one of them shall be allotted and delivered to the plaintiff. The decree also gives the latter mesne profits. The 1st, 2nd and 11th defendants have filed this appeal.2. The facts relevant for determining the points that arise in the appeal lie within a very narrow compass. I find it, however, necessary and useful, on account of the judgment of the lower Court and the arguments advanced, to refer to and state the facts of the case fully.3. One Govindappa had two sons, Defendants 12 and 13. The plaintiff is the son of the 12th defendant. These formed members of a joint Hindu family and owned valuable land of the extent of about 340 acres. They executed a simple mortgage (Ex. B of 19-2-1898) in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 and one Ramanathan Chetty, the deceased father of the 4th defendant, for securing repayment of Rs. 60,000. Previous to this mortgage a lease ...
Koduru Venkureddi and anr. Vs. Magunta Venkureddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.1018
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgments about to be delivered by my learned brothers. I agree with them and have nothing to add.Krishnan, J.2. The question referred in this case to the Full Bench is 'Where a father or a managing member of a joint Hindu family contracts a simple debt and then there is a partition among the members of the family, can the creditor proceed against the property allotted to the other members for such a debt?' When the appellant opened his case in the Full Bench it was found that the question formulated did not properly arise and it was decided that it need not be considered but that the whole second appeal should be treated as before the Full Bench for disposal. We have thus heard arguments in the second appeal.3. The second appeal arises in a suit brought by a Hindu son against his father and his two younger brothers, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, for a partition of their joint family property and the delivery over ...
Kuppusami Iyengar and ors. Vs. Bavasami Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.399
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The decree of the lower Court directs that the suit lauds shall be partitioned into four equal shares and one of them shall be allotted and delivered to the plaintiffs. The decree also gives the latter mesne profits. The 1st, 2nd and 11th defendants hare filed this appeal.2. The facts relevant for determining the points that arise in the appeal lie within a very narrow compass. I find it, however, necessary and useful, on account of the judgment of the lower Court and the arguments advanced, to refer to and state the facts of the case fully.3. One Govindappa had two sons, defendants Nos. 12 and 13. The plaintiff is the son of the 12th defendant. These formed members of a joint Hindu family and owned valuable land of the extent of about 340 acres. They executed a simple mortgage (Ex. B of 19th February, 1898) in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Ramanathan Chetty the deceased father of the 4th defendant for securing re-payment of Rs. 60,000. Previous to th...
Punyakurthula Venkata Rattamma Vs. Chalasani Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ100
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sued for possession of certain property after ejecting defendants therefrom, and for rent and subsequent mesne profits.2. The defendants in the suits clubbed together admitted that they had been paying annual rent and that plaintiff was entitled to arrears of rent, but claimed that the property was governed by the Estates Land Act so as to take the suit beyond the Munsif's jurisdiction, and also that they had occupancy right. The following issues were framed (as if for one of the suits): 1. Is the defendant a yearly tenant as alleged by the plaintiff, or is he a tenant with a permanent right of occupancy?2. Is the notice to quit valid?3. What damages or mesne profits, if any, is plaintiff entitled to?4. Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit?5. What relief is plaintiff entitled to?3. The Lower Courts concur in finding that defendant is not a tenant with permanent right of occupancy, that the notice to quit is valid and the suit is within the ordinary jurisd...
inguligi Venkatasivaramadass Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad350; (1927)52MLJ132
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is entitled to irrigate his lands in a certain village within the proprietary estate of Urlam free of charge, for an injunction restraining the Government from collecting water cess from him and for recovery of water cess alleged to have been wrongfully collected. The learned District Munsif found that the last of these claims was barred under Article 16 of the Limitation Act, but gave the declaration prayed for, holding it unnecessary to grant an injunction against the Government. The learned Subordinate Judge has taken the view that, as the suit is barred in respect of the claim to recover the water-cess collected, the relief as regards the declaration is also barred. He argues that the cause of action upon which these reliefs were based is one and the same and that the relief by way of declaration was only incidental and ancillary to the prayer for a refund of the amount. It appears to me very doubtful whether this is a co...
(Punyamurthula) Venkata Rattamma Vs. Chalasani Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad331
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sued for possession of certain property after ejecting defendants therefrom; and for rent and subsequent mesne profits.2. The defendants in the suits clubbed together admitted that they had been paying annual rent and that plaintiff was entitled to arrears of rent, but claimed that the property was governed by the Estates Land Act so as to take the suit beyond the Munsif's jurisdiction, and also that they had occupancy right. The following issues were framed (as if for one of the suits).(1) Is the defendant a yearly tenant as alleged by the plaintiff or is he a tenant with a permanent right of occupancy?(2)Is the notice to quit valid?(3)What damages or mesne profits if any, is plaintiff entitled to?(4)Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit?(5) What relief is plaintiff entitled to?3. The lower Courts concur in finding that defendant is not a tenant with permanent right of occupancy, that the notice to quit is valid and the suit is within the ordinary jurisdi...
Kozhikkot Puthia Kovilagath Manavedan Alias Anujan Rajah, Avl., and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad422; (1927)52MLJ277
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from decree in O.S. No. 16 of 1925, Subordinate Judge, Calicut. The parties to this suit are members of the family of the Zamorin of Calicut, but for the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to detail the complicated rules of succession prevailing in that family. In essence the suit is simple, and the learned vakils on either side have proceeded (and, in our opinion, rightly proceeded)on the assumption that it is a suit for the removal of the Karnavan of an ordinary Malabar tarwad, coupled with the prayer that he be ordered to furnish general accounts for the period of his office. In this family, the Karnavan happens to be a woman, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is her son, alleged to have acted as her manager and to have imposed his will upon her to the detriment of the rerwad in general. Defendants 3 and 4 are the remaining members of the particular branch descended by way of the motherhood of the first defendant (the tavazhi in Malayali phraseology). ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »