Chennai Court August 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.
Pinnamameni Basava Sankaram (Minor) by Mother and Guardian Rattamma Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1; (1926)51MLJ529
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Devadoss, J., in S.A. No. 100 of 1923. The 2nd defendant applied to the District Court of Kistna to be adjudicated an insolvent on the 24th of January, 1918. On the 31st of January, 1918 the District Court transferred the petition to the Official Receiver, the 1st defendant. The adjudication order was made on the 15th of July, 1918 and the Official Receiver put the property in dispute to sale at an auction held on the 25th of August 1918, and executed a sale deed on the 12th of September, 1919. Defendants 3 to 5 are the purchasers under the sale deed. The plaintiff who is the son of the 2nd defendant sued for a declaration that the sale by the Official Receiver is invalid, and for a partition and delivery to him of his share. He alleged that the debts contracted by his father were for illegal and immoral purposes not binding on him and that even if the sale is valid his interest would not be affe...
Mir Mahomed Noorulla Sahib Vs. Hasarath Kibulai Sayyad Ghulam Ghouse S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1209; (1926)51MLJ554
Ramesam, J.1. This is a second appeal arising in execution. The decree was obtained in the Sub-Court of Tanjore. The decree-holder applied to have it transferred to the District Court on 25th February, 1926 and it was so transferred. After waiting for six months the District Court returned the decree with a certificate that the decree-holder did not apply for execution, on 11th September, 1918. Apparently, in ignorance of this fact, the decree-holder applied to the District Court on 8th January, 1919, when he was informed that the decree had already been returned under Rule 161(a) of the Rules of Practice. The next petition filed was in the Subi-Court on 12th April, 1921. He was asked how it was in time, but he did not represent it with the information. The present application was filed on 8th February, 1923. The Courts held that it was, barred. The decree-holder appeals.2. If the application of January, 1919 was in time, then the application of April 1921 was also in time; then the pr...
Bobbaladi Gateppa, Minor, by Next Friend Andragal Adeppa Vs. Bobbaladi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ757
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. The only question in these appeals is whether the consent of the husband or his sapindas is necessary to validate an adoption made by a Jain widow. The Lower Court held that the Jains are governed by Hindu Law in the absence of proof of any custom to the contrary and that the adoption is invalid as no consent was obtained either from the husband or his sapindas. The finding of fact as to the absence of consent is not disputed before us. The main argument of Mr. Sambasiva Rao who appears for the appellants is that so far as the Jains are concerned no consent is necessary and that the Lower Court is wrong in thinking that the Hindu Law applied to them. Were the matter res Integra I would be inclined to hold that modern research has shown that Jains are not Hindu dissenters but that Jainism has an origin and history long anterior to the Smritis and commentaries which are recognised authorities on Hindu Law and usage. In fact, Maha Veera, the...
(Chandana) Venkatasubbayya Vs. (Gada) Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad80
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in A. S. No. 65 of 1924 (E. P. No. 258 of 1923 on. the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Avanigadda at Masulipatam).2. The decree-holder in O. S. No. 57 of 1918 filed an execution application on 26th June 1922. The previous application was on 20th January 1919.3. In order to save the bar of limitation the decree-holder relies upon a payment under Order 21, Rule 56 made on 31st October 1919, alleging that such payment is tantamount to a payment by the debtor's agent duly authorised in this behalf as contemplated by Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act.4. The question for determination is whether this payment can be described as such.5. In O. S. No. 6 of 1911 on the file of the Bandar Additional District Munsif there was deposited a sum of Rs. 514 to the credit of the plaintiff, Chandana Veeraswami. This sum was attached before judgment by the present respondent Seshayya wh...
G. Ramachandra Rao Vs. V. Sama Rayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad143
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage-bond executed in his favour by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant confessed execution and pleaded that of the consideration of Rs. 400, Rs. 7-4-0 was paid. The District Munsif accepted this plea, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed his judgment and decreed the plaintiff's claim in full. The 1st defendant prefers this second appeal.2. On the question of consideration, I cannot accept the view that the Sub-ordinate Judge in coming to his conclusion, has overlooked such obvious parts of the evidence as have been referred to by the District Munsif in para. 15 of his judgment, such for instance as the youthfulness and profligacy of the mortgager, 1st defendant, and the astuteness of the plaintiff. It appears to me that he has weighed the probabilities of this part of the case, and his finding being one of fact I cannot interfere in it.3. The appellant, however, raises the question whether the mortgage-deed was duly atteste...
(Bobbaladi) Gateppa Vs. (Bobbaladi) Eramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad228
Kumaraswami Sastri Offg. C. J.1. The only question in these appeals is whether the consent of the husband or his sapindas is necessary to validate an adoption made by a Jain widow. The lower Court held that the Jains are governed by Hindu Law in the absence of proof of any custom to the contrary and that the adoption is invalid as no consent was obtained either from the husband or his sapindas. The finding of fact as to the absence of consent is not disputed before us. The main argument of Mr. Sambasiva Rao who appears for the appellants is that so far as the Jains are concerned no consent is necessary and that the lower Court is wrong in thinking that the Hindu Law applied to them. Were the matter res integra I would be inclined to hold that modern research has shown that Jains are not Hindu dissenters but that Jainism has an origin and history long anterior to the Smritis and commentaries which are recognized authorities on Hindu Law and usage. In fact, Maha Veera, the last of the Ja...
(Garapati) Gangaraju Vs. Pendyala Somanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad197
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the daughter's son of one Kristnamma and the 2nd defendant is his sons's son. The 1st defendant is the 2nd defendant's father-in-law. The 1st defendant brought a suit upon a promissory note against Kristnamma and the 2nd defendant and attached the family property before judgment. Subsequently, but during the pendency of the suit, Kristnamma died. The 2nd defendant was brought on record as his legal representative and a decree was passed against the family property in his hands. In the course of the execution proceedings the plaintiff filed a claim petition asserting his right to a portion of the property on the strength of a conveyance deed executed by Kristnamma on 27th February 1917. The first question arising in this second appeal is whether the said deed is a Will or a conveyance reserving a life-estate.2. The document on the face of it is of a non-testamentary character. It was so stamped and so registered. It is called a dakal dastave...
Phakiru Panigrahi Vs. Kothapalli Chendrasekharam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad215
Odgers, J.1. The sole question in this case is whether the appellant should be allowed to keep the lands he has purchased on payment of the difference between the amount of consideration held to be binding and the amount of the purchase money. The suit was by a minor after attainment of his majority to set aside the sale by his mother and guardian. The lower appellate Court has found that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,185, Rs. 895 is good and binding on the minor. I cannot find in the Subordinate Judge's judgment whether he was specifically asked to exercise his discretion in favour of upholding the sale, but the learned counsel for the respondent has taken no objection on that ground before me.2. The current of Madras decisions, five or six in number of which the following are illustrations: Thalagara Ramanne v. Kalagare Gangayya [1915] 27 M. L. J. 132 Kannan Chetty v. Amrithammal [1914] 1 L. W. 877 Rukmani Sundarammal v. Muthu Ammal [1915] M. W. N. 8 Seshamma v. Venkatrayaringaru...
K. Ahmed Meera Sahib Vs. Meeran Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad393
ORDERJackson, J.1. If a Bench summons a person to appear on a certain day at 11 a. m. and the party appears and the Bench does not sit till 2 p. m. and the party does not wait, it cannot be said that the party has failed to appear within the mischief of Section 247, Criminal P. C.2. The petition is allowed, the judgment and acquittal are reversed, and the case remanded to the Bench of Sembiam for re-trial....
Ponnammal Vs. Pichai thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ33
Ramesam, J.1. The suit was originally filed by two plaintiffs, a brother and sister, and in the plaint it was stated that a decree may be given in favour of the 1st plaintiff who is the only person interested in the amount. The Court below dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The second appeal has been filed only by the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff being made the 1st respondent. It is explained that the vakalat of the 1st plaintiff was not ready and so he had to be made a respondent and not that he does not want a decree. I directed that the 1st plaintiff should be transposed as an additional appellant. It is then objected by the respondents that the appeal is out of time. Apart from the consideration that where a party is transposed no question of limitation arises, it seems to me that the 2nd plaintiff only is competent to carry on the second appeal. Though ultimately the 1st plaintiff is the person interested in the transaction, as the 2nd plaintiff conducted most of them as his ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »