Chennai Court March 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.
Pathina Subbarami Reddi Vs. Genesam Pattabhirama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad977
Phillips, J.1. This is a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act. The minor having attained majority, the guardian was discharged and filed his accounts in Court. The minor took objection to these accounts and wished the Court to hold an enquiry and ascertain what amount was really due by the guardian. The District Judge has declined to hold any enquiry and has referred the minor to a suit if so advised. It is' now contended for the petitioner, the late minor, that this order is wrong and that under Section 41(4) the Court ought to have held an enquiry and discharged the guardian after ascertaining what was due from him. There is no specific provision in the Act for such taking of accounts and determining the amount due by the guardian, but it is contended that in view of the fact that Section 41(4) says : ' the Court may declare him to be discharged from his liabilities,' etc, this can only be done alter an enquiry has been held, but it must be observed that there is no mandate in ...
A.P.R.K.R.V. Vellayan Chetti and ors. Vs. Venugopal Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.570
1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover certain properties on the footing that they belong to the estate of Thiruvengadam Chetti, who died leaving a widow, a daughter and a daughter's son and on the death of the widow, and the daughter in 1908 and 1909 respectively the properties descended to the daughter's son and the plaintiff purchased the interest of the daughter's son by a sale-deed in 1920. The defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are purchasers of the three items of property, (which are the subject of the suit) in execution of a decree obtained against the widow and a nephew of Thimvengadam Chetti. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. Thiruvengadam was originally an inhabitant of Wallajapet; afterwards he removed to Madras and carried on business. He died in 1894. At the time of his death he had also a nephew named Ranganatha Chetti and a kararnama was entered into between the widow Anandammal and the daughter Ammakannu on the one side and the nephew...
Maneckji Pestonji Bharucha and anr. Vs. Wadilal Sarabhai and Company a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ1
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. In March, 1920, the second plaintiff in this case, Arajania, who is not a certified share-broker, and who describes himself as the sub-broker of the first plaintiff Bharucha, who is a certified share-broker, sold on the Bombay Stock Exchange to first defendant, bora, 129 shares of a Company called Alcock, Ashdown & Co., Ltd. for delivery on the 14th April, 1920. Neither of the two plaintiffs was the registered holder of any such shares. In order to make good the delivery the first plaintiff acquired the requisite number of shares in the market from various brokers, and took from these brokers blank transfers signed by the registered holders along with the corresponding certificates. These certificates and blank transfers were handed by the second plaintiff to the first defendant at 6 P.M. on the 14th April. At 8 v. M. a cheque for the sum due under the contract in favour of the first plaintiff was handed to the second plaintiff. This cheque was dishonoured on the...
Madhura Gramani Vs. Thummala Sesha Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1018; 97Ind.Cas.622; (1926)51MLJ254
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the Subordinate Judge of Nellore. The District Munsif had held that the suit was barred under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9, and had dismissed it. The suit was one for the partition of certain property in which the plaintiff claimed a three-fourths share. In the year 1911 the plaintiff's assignor had brought a suit for obtaining joint possession of this three-fourths share and it had been decreed. In 1917 she filed for partition of her share and separate enjoyment and that suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8. It is now contended for the appellant that the present suit which is also one for partition is barred under Order 9, Rule 9. The Subordinate Judge has relied on several cases of the Allahabad High Court and one in Madan Mohan Mondul v. Baikanta Nath (1906) 10 C W N 839 cases which dealt with suits for partition in families which were originally joint Hindu families, and the contention now raised is that these decisions mu...
P. V. Arumugam Pillai and anr. Vs. Malipathi Muthiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1156
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal in reference to an account taken upon a mortgage of which redemption has been decreed. The first objection taken by the appellant is that the interest on the principal and other amounts are not charged on the property, and he relies upon a decision of mine in Bysani Madhava Chettiar's Charity Fund v. Krishnaswamy Chetty A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 71 In that case I held, upon the construction of the document, that the interest upon the mortgage-money was not secured upon the property and that it was a personal covenant to pay the amount. The language of the document now under consideration is in some respects similar, but I think it must be distinguished from the deed in the other case. In the former case one important stipulation was a promise to repay the principal amount only on a certain date, from which it cm reasonably be inferred that amount, and not that amount plus interest, was the mortgage amount. Here we have a recital as to the principal; then follo...
S.K. Subba Aiyar Vs. Pichumani Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1144
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against; the order of the lower appellate Court reversing the order of the Principal District Munsif of Srivaikuntam in a matter in execution viz., the order in which certain mortgaged property shall be sold in execution of a mortgage decree. Two items are involved in this case. The appellant is the decree-holder and the respondent is the 8th defendant who is interested in Item 2 and wants it to be sold last. The District Munsif permitted the property to be sold in the order selected by the decree-holder, as ordered in M.P. No. 99 of 1918. The decree-holder has chosen to sell Item 2 first. It has been sold and the sale has been confirmed. The lower appellate Court reversed the order, cancelled the sale, and directed that further enquiry be held that the sale of the properties shall be in the order in which they are set out in the decree, provided that the 8th defendant has the right of marshalling.2. The order of the lower appellate Court seems to me vitiat...
S.K. Subba Ayyar Vs. Pichumani Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.601
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the lower Appellate Court reversing the order of the Principal District Munsif of Srivaikuntam in a matter in execution, viz., the order in which certain mortgaged property shall be sold is execution of a mortgage-decree. Two items are involved ia this case. The appellant i8 the decree-holder and the respondent is the 8th defendant who is interested in Item No. 2 and wants it to be sold last. The District Munsif permitted the property to be sold in the order selected by the decree-holder, as ordered in M.P. No. 99 of 1918. The decree-holder has chosen to sell Item No. 2 first. It has been sold and the sale has been confirmed. The lower Appellate Court reversed the order, cancelled the sale, and directed that further enquiry be held and that the sale of the properties shall be in the order in which they are set out in the decree, provided that the 8th defendant has the right of marshalling.2. The order of the lower Appellate Court seems ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›