Chennai Court December 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.
Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Duraisami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad681; 101Ind.Cas.82
Devadoss, J.1. One Ganapathi Pillai by his Will dated 2nd October 1915, made a bequest in favour of his brother and his sister and a dependant and directed that out of the income of some items of property certain charities should be performed by his sister's husband Doraisami Pillai. The question in this second appeal is whether Doraisami Pillai has a heritable interest in the property or whether there is an intestacy with regard to the surplus of the income of the items of property out of which he is directed to make certain payments. Both the lower Courts have held that the testator bequeathed the property to Doraisami Pillai burdened only with a trust and that he was entitled to enjoy the surplus income that may remain after making the payments directed by the Will. It is contended by the learned Advocate-General that the Subordinate Judge in construing the Will has given undue importance to the principle that in construing the provisions of a Will the Court should lean strongly aga...
Mandavilli Ramanna Vs. the Official Receiver, Godavari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.153
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Godavari setting aside the sale of two native schooners in favour of the appellant by an insolvent, V.K. Subramania Pillai, a native of Ceylon. The insolvent was carrying on ship building business in the Godavari District from 1917 to 1920 and in the course of this business he was purchasing timber and iron goods from merchants in that district and became indebted to them. The appellant is one of such merchants. He was supplying him with iron goods and money. The last promissory note between the appellant and the insolvent Ex. XIX, dated 1st October, 1919, purports to be for Rs. 30,000. Along with it an agreement. Ex. XXI, was said to have been executed on the same day giving his ships as security for the money. The ships were sold by transfer of registry before the Port Officer on 19th January, 1920. Vide Exs. XV, XVI, XVII. Within a month after this, it is said that the insolvent left the district. The suits were filed a...
In Re: Gaddam Venkatasubba Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ298
ORDERWallace, J.1. It is the obvious duty of the executive to uphold the civil rights declared by its own Civil Courts. Any omission to do that is a confession of failure in duty. No doubt, the interests of the public peace are paramount, but, whereas in this case, the District Magistrate must be aware that there will probably be a disturbance of the petitioner's civil rights at recurring seasons every year, it is his duty to exhaust every measure at his disposal to uphold declared civil rights before he abandons the attempt, and he should resort to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only when there is no time or opportunity for any other course. I am not satisfied in this case that all such other measures were used. The District Magistrate, for example, by taking thought in time--it is part of his duty to take thought in time--could have those who threaten to, interfere with the petitioner's civil rights bound over to keep the peace, or might have got down sufficient force ...
Vanka Ramayya Vs. Vanka Narayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ634
1. The facts are these. The plaintiffs are reversioners to the estate of Venka Venkayya. When he died, his widow Papadu succeeded to his estate and alienated certain of his properties. Item (1) was purchased by the first defendant from the father of defendants 2 to 5 to whom Papadu had sold it. Item (3) was sold to defendants 2 and 3 by Papadu herself. Papadu died more than 25 years ago. Her daughter Manickkam who then succeeded to the properties of her father executed a surrender deed, Ex. A, dated 29th January, 1919, in favour of the present plaintiffs and they have sued for resovery of possession of these properties from the defendants.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the alienations are not binding on the reversioners and their right to succeed by inheritance is accelerated by the surrender effected by Manickkam. The District Munsif held that the surrender was neither valid nor bona fide. The learned Subordinate Judge holding that the surrender is valid remanded the suit for a fresh...
Sammiti Ranga Reddi and ors. Vs. Yallialuru Chinasidda Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ78
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The father of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and another started a partnership business. On the death of the plaintiff's father, his sons became members of the partnership, and the 3rd defendant was also taken in as a partner. Later on, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having died, they also became members of the partnership. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant were entitled to one-twelfth share in the partnership business. Unpleasantness having arisen between the parties, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the dissolution of the partnership, settlement of accounts, and recovery of his and his brother's one-twelfth share and for other allied reliefs. The defendants including the 4th defendant disputed the correctness of some of the statements made in the plaint. The 4th defendant also prayed that the amount due to him might be paid to him. The case was, by an order of Court, referred to an arbitration of three perso...
Vadapilli Jogarao Vs. Kala Venkamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad497
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for setting aside the decree in O. S. No. 606 of 1915 on the ground that his guardian was grossly negligent in not putting forward proper defences to that suit. The Subordinate Judge has granted a decree in plaintiff's favour and the 6th defendant has preferred this second appeal. It is strongly contended by Mr. Rama Rao for the appellant that P. W. 11, the vendor of the plaintiff's property, was estopped from contending that the decree Ex. D, is not binding upon him and, therefore, the plaintiff who derives title from him cannot set up a plea which is not open to P. W. 11 and he is also bound by anything which would bind P. W. 11. If as Mr. Rama Rao contends the 1st defendant was misled by any misrepresentation made by P. W. 11 at the time when Ex. D was passed and if the 1st defendant believed that representation and on that representation she got a charge on the Thuruvolu properties, no doubt P. W. 11 would be estopped from afterwards contendin...
(Venka) Ramayya Vs. (Venka) Narayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad530
1. The facts are these. The plaintiffs are reversioners to the estate of one Venkayya. When he died, his widow Papadu succeeded to his estate and alienated certain of his properties. Item No. (1) was purchased by the 1st defendant from the father of the Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 to whom Papadu had sold it. Item No. (3) was sold to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by Papadu herself. Papadu died more than 25 years ago. Her daughter Manickkam who then succeeded to the properties of her father executed a surrender deed, Ex. A, dated 29th January 1919, in favour of the present plaintiffs and they have sued for recovery of possession of these properties from the defendants.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the alienations are not binding on the reversioners and their right to succeed by inheritance is accelerated by the surrender effected by Manickkam. The District Munsif held that the surrender was neither valid nor bona fide. The learned Subordinate Judge, holding that the surrender is valid, remanded t...
(Putta) Yarramma Vs. Kala Venkamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad659; 101Ind.Cas.165
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the decree in O. S No. 606 of 1915 and the sale under that decree are void and illegal inasmuch as she was not a party to the suit. It is found by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff was only a benamidar for her son who was impleaded as a party to the suit O. S. No. 606 of 1915, and all the properties which stood in the name of the plaintiff, his mother, were mentioned in the schedule to the plaint' in O. S. No. 606 of 1915 against which relief was asked for. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have pleaded specifically that those items were hers and she not being party they should not be proceeded against. What Mr. Suryanarayana now contends is that she thought the property was hers and she not being a party to the suit, no decree should be passed against her property. But unfortunately for her the finding now is she was only a benamidar for her son who was the 3rd defendant in that case. If the plaintiff is able to mak...
Chinnammal Vs. Venkatasami Naiken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad705
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for maintenance. The District Munsif gave her Rs. 45 a year and the Subordinate Judge has reduced the amount to Rs. 25 on the ground that she had entered into an agreement with the defendant's father for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25, which is evidenced by Ex. I. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Iyer for the respondent contends that Ex. I bars the present suit, Exhibit I is a maintenance arrangement made by Rama Naicker, father of the defendant, on 17th July 1910, undertaking to pay the plaintiff Rs. 25 a year. There is nothing in Ex. I to show that the amount was fixed for all time. In the absence of any undertaking to get Rs. 25 for all time the Court is not prevented from giving the plaintiff a higher rate of maintenance than that mentioned in Ex. I, when the circumstances existing at the time of Ex. I have since altered. It is well-known that since 1910 prices of foodstuffs have gone up considerably; and, arart from that, there is nothing to show th...
V. E. S. Subramanian Chetty Vs. Kasi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad937
1. The parties seem to admit that there was a partition in 1895. Apart from the admission, it is doubtful if Ex. A amounts to a complete partition between the father and the sons. But, assuming there was a partition between all the three, the question arises: What is the position of the house after 1895? There are three alternatives: (1) It continued to be ancestral property in the hands of the father; (2) it was allotted exclusively to the father and thereafter was like his self-acquired property; (3) all the three owned undivided third shares in the property. A fourth alternative that from the beginning it was self-acquired property need not be discussed, for its effect is like the second alternative and appellant's evidence is rather against it. The respondent contends for the third alternative and argues that his father and himself owned one-third share of the house since 1895.2. The fact that the sons of Vairavan occupied separate rooms cannot help us in the decision of the case a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »