Court : Chennai
Reported in : 101Ind.Cas.118; (1927)52MLJ599
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that Ayyaswami Sastri released his right in the family property in consideration of a, monthly payment of Rs. 5 from his two sons, that the release amounts to a sale of the interest of Ayyaswami Sastri in the family property and as such it cannot be valid without a registered instrument. The arrangement evidenced by Ex. D was between the two sons of Ayyaswami Sastri. They divided the family house and in the document they agreed to pay Rs. 5 to their father. The question is whether there was any actual release by the father, and whether from the terms of the document it can be inferred that the father released his right in favour of the sons for a consideration and whether that arrangement amounted to a sale. It is not stated in the document that the Rs. 5 was to be paid on consideration of the relinquishment by the father of his share of the family property. The document simply provides for payment by the sons of so much to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 101Ind.Cas.495; (1927)52MLJ601
ORDERWallace, J.1. The investigation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made by the police officer, and the statements are, therefore, statements made to a police officer 'in the course of an investigation under the chapter' under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the inquest is held in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants does not render the statements taken there any the less statements made to a police officer. Such statements are therefore not public documents of which accused is entitled to a copy and the procedure which governs the grant of copies of statements under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs also the grant of copies of statements made at the inquest.2. The latest ruling of this Court on this subject is reported in Peramasami Rayudu, In re (1925) 22 LW 784.3. As to the post-mortem certificate, I can see no objection to the grant of a copy of that and in practice I think that when the medical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)55MLJ471
1. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by the 1st respondent to recover the amount due under an equitable mortgage made by deposit of title deeds and evidenced by a registered instrument. The amount to secure which the equitable mortgage was made had admittedly been advanced to a business carried on in partnership by defendants 1 to 3, the original defendants in the action.2. The property over which the equitable mortgage was given as security belonged, however, to the first defendant or his family. The 4th defendant in this suit, the appellant before us, was added as a party on his own application apparently with a view to have determined in this action itself the question whether or not the equitable mortgage made by the 1st defendant was binding on his half share in the property.3. It has thus come about that the pleadings in the case, so far as the liability of the 4th defendant was concerned, were not as accurate as otherwise they might have been. On behalf of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad593
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that Ayyasami Sastri released his right in the family property in consideration of a monthly payment of Rs. 5 from his two sons, that the release amounts to a sale of the interest of Ayyasami Sastri in the family property and as such it cannot be valid without a registered instrument. The arrangement evidenced by Ex. B was between the two sons of Ayyasami Sastri, They divided the family house and in the document they agreed to pay Rs. 5 to their father. The question is whether there was any actual release by the father, and whether from the terms of the document it can be inferred that the father released his right in favour of the sons for a consideration and whether that arrangement amounted to a sale. It is not stated in the document that the Rs. 5 was to be paid in consideration of the relinquishment by the father of his share of the family property. The document simply provides for payment by the sons of so much to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad657; 101Ind.Cas.610
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for arrears of maintenance against her husband, the 1st defendant; she attached his property before judgment and a claim petition against the attachment was allowed in favour of the claimant. The appellant has brought the present suit for setting aside the order of the claim petition, and for a declaration that the suit property is liable to be attached and sold in execution .of her decree. The District Munsif decreed her suit as regards items 2, 3 and 4, and dismissed it as regards items Nos. 1 and 5. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Palghat has allowed her appeal as regards items Nos. 1 and 5. The 2nd defendant, the vendee of items Nos. 1 and 5 has preferred this second appeal.2. It is contended by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for the appellant that the right to separate maintenance of a Hindu wife arises only in certain circumstances and when it does, the liability is a personal one and does not depend upon the possibility of property and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad715; 101Ind.Cas.571
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the alienation under Ex. F is binding upon the plaintiff. Under Ex. F the property belonging to the plaintiff's father and property which the plaintiff's mother, the 1st defendant, inherited from her parents were sold to the Defendants 2 and 3 for Rs. 600. Both Courts have dismissed the plaintiff' s suit. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. Mr. Rajah Aiyar for the appellants contends that the sale of the ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiff and his father is not binding upon him, inasmuch as there was no necessity at the time for the sale of the property. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's father was obliged to sell the property, for he was not living in the place, he hardly had any income, he was living at a distance as a cook and it was necessary to celebrate the plaintiff' s Upanayanam who was about eleven or twelve years of age on the date of the sale, and therefore the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1158
1. The only question in this appeal relates to enhanced rate of interest. The mortgage is dated the 4th May 1917, and the amount is payable by instalments of Rs. 2,500, the last instalment being due on the 5th May 1921. The penal clause in the document runs as follows:Should in any instalment as aforesaid there be default in paying either the principal sum or the interest, we shall, whenever you may require, for the principal sums as may be due till the last installment and the interest as may be due till then, irespective of the subsequent instalments, pay compound interest accruing thereon at 1-1/4 per cent. (one and a quarter per cent) a month at 12 months' rest, from the date of default, from out of the undermentioned secured properties, holding ourselves as well personally liable.2. It appears that certain instalments were paid and endorsements made on the document. On the 19th June 1918, a sum of money of Rs. 859 was paid as compound interest, but the compound interest paid there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad566
1. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by respondent 1 to recover the amount due under an equitable mortgage made by deposit of title-deeds and evidenced by a registered instrument. The amount to secure which the equitable mortgage was made had admittedly been advanced to a business carried on in partnership by defendants 1 to 3, the original defendants in the action.2. The property over which the equitable mortgage was given as security belonged, however, to defendant 1 or his family. Defendant 4 in this suit, the appellant before us, was added as a party on his own application, apparently with a view to have determined in this action itself the question whether or not the equitable mortgage made by defendant 1 was binding on his half-share in the property.3. It has thus come about that the pleadings in the case, so far as the liability of defendant 4 was concerned, were not as accurate as otherwise they might have been. On behalf of defendant 4, it being denied that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 112Ind.Cas.486; (1928)55MLJ12
Beasley, J.1. This motion raises a question of great importance and interest because I have to consider the status of the classes of persons who are connected with the firms each as the insolvent firm here, Labbai firm or what is sometimes known as an ' Ejman partnership,' My task has not been rendered any the easier by reason of the fact that though these Labbai firms are numeroits in the Presidency and have been carried on for many years there has been no reported case in this Court which even considers the status of those persons who are connected with those firms merely by a deposit of money in the firm's business. That is the position of the petitioner here, He is a trustee of the Madrassa Girls' School at Ambur. The school was started in 1913 and K. Abdul Rahiman took a leading part in its foundation. Sums of money were set apart in the firm's books which became the school funds and an account was opened headed 'Account of the Madrassa at Ambur.' Into these accounts there were br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 102Ind.Cas.141
1. The only question in this appeal relates to enhanced rate of interest. The mortgage is dated the 4th of May, 1917, and the amount is payable by instalments of Rs. 2,500 the last instalment being due on the 5th. May, 1921. The penal clause in the document runs as follows: 'Should in any instalment as aforesaid, there be default in paying either the principal sum or the interest, we shall whenever you may require, for the principal sums as may be due till the last instalment and the interest as may be due, till then, irrespective of the subsequent instalments, pay compound interest accruing thereon at 1 1/4 per cent. (1 1/4 per cent.) a month at 12 months rest, from the date of default, from out of the undermentioned secured properties, holding ourselves as well personally liable. It appears that certain instalments were paid and endorsements made on the document. On the 18th June, 1918, a sum of Ra. 859 was paid as compound interest but the compound interest paid there was with month...
Tag this Judgment!