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.
Sadasivan Pillai Vs. Shanmugam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad126
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for partition and incidental reliefs. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree for partition in respect of properties set out in B and C schedules but dismissed the plaintiff's suit as regards the properties mentioned in A schedule. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court of West Tanjore and the District Judge granted a decree for partition in respect of A schedule properties. The first defendant has preferred this second appeal against the District Judge's decree.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the properties mentioned in schedule A are ancestral and that he is entitled to a half share in them. The defence is that by a Will dated 10th September 1912, the father arranged that the plaintiff should get only 2 1/2 acres of the ancestral properties and the rest should go to the first defendant the elder brother. The Subordinate Judge found that Ex. A was inoperative as a Will but it evidenced a family arrangement to which the plaintiff was a p...
Bhaskaruni Venkatanarayana Vs. Bhaskaruni Lakshmibayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad98
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for contribution which has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The contention of Mr. Raghava Rao is that the renewal of the original por-tend by his client was not the incurring of a new debt as the learned District Judge thinks and, therefore, he is entitled to a decree for contribution. No doubt in the case of joint promisors if one promisor is made to pay the amount, the other promisor is bound to contribute towards such payment and the cause of action does not arise till the amount of the original debt is paid off. The mere renewal of a note is not equivalent to payment. That was distinctly held in Putti Narayanamurthi v. Marimuthu Pillai [1903] 26 Mad. 322 and even though a joint promisor is exonerated on the ground of limitation in the suit brought by the promisee against the promisors, if a decree is obtained against one of them and that promisor pays off the decree he is entitled to cont...
(Duvvuri) Subramaniam and anr. Vs. (Duvvuri) Lakshminarasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad213
Devadoss, J.1. Mr. Somasundaram for the appellants wants to raise the question of res judicata which, according to him, was argued before the learned Judge but was not noticed by him. He has filed an affidavit from the vakil in the lower Court that he pressed the point of res judicata. The learned Judge who is always careful to note the points pressed before him has not adverted to it in his judgment. The respondent's vakil who appeared in the lower Court is now dead and in the circumstances I thought it best to allow the point to be argued. The contention is that in the previous Original Suit No. 8 of 1913 the plaintiff's husband asked for a partition of the properties not partitioned at the time of the partition and a specific issue was raised in the following terms:2. 'Whether defendants failed to include any properties in the partition deed;' and that question having been decided by the Court it is not now open to the present plaintiff to sue for the husband's share of the same pro...
Alavandar Gramani Vs. Danakoti Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad383
Curgenven, J.1. Of these two appeals from judgments of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput it will be sufficient to deal in extenso with A. S. No. 74 of 1922, as the decision in A. S. No. 45 of 1923 will follow from the findings reached in the former appeal.2. The following table shows the family relationship of the person to whom this appeal relates:THANIKACHALA______________|___________________| | |1st wife=Thiyagaraja=2nd Appadural Raju| wife Defen- || dent No.2-5 Kuppusami_______|___________ || | |Defendent Defendent |No.-2 No.-2 |_______________|_____________| | |Defendent Defendent PlantiffNo.-3 No.-43. Thanikachala was by profession--the family profession--a toddy contractor, and acquired a certain amount of property. He was thrice married, and by each wife had one son. In 1891 he made a will favouring his third wife (then alone surviving) and her son Raju at the expense of his two elder sons, Thyagaraja and Appadurai, who quarrelled with him and left home. Thanikachala died in ...
Paruchuri Rattamma Vs. Surugutchi Seshachalam Sarma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad502; 101Ind.Cas.806; (1927)52MLJ520
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the sale by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The 2nd defendant who is the wife of the 1st defendant brought a suit for maintenance and asked for a charge on the property of the husband. 1st defendant sold one of the six items belonging to him to the plaintiff in order to pay off a decree debt. The 2nd defendant obtained a decree for maintenance and the plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the charge in her favour is not binding upon the plaint property. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's sale was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and the charge for maintenance would not bind the property is the hands of the plaintiff. Mr. Ramamurthi for the appellant contends that inasmuch as the property was sold pending her suit the sale must be held subject to the result of the suit. It is difficult to see how the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a case li...
Sundarammal Vs. Ameenal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad72
1. The question which arises in this case is whether a Hindu daughter can inherit from her father who once a Hindu, has been converted to Mahomedanism. It is admitted that the answer to this question must turn on the construction which is given to Act 21 of 1850, inasmuch as apart from the Act, no Hindu can inherit from a Mahomedan. This Act has received interpretation by a Bench of this Court in Vaithilinga v. Ayyathorai [1917] 40 Mad. 1118 and the learned Judges have held that it accords protection only to a person who has renounced, or has been excluded from the communion of his former religion, or has been deprived of his caste.2. The only other cases to which my attention has been drawn are Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu [1888] 11 All. 100 and two others, viz., Hassomal Murijmal v. Ghulam Mahomed [1915] 8 S. L. R. 156 and Rupa v. Sardar Mirza [1920] 1 Lah. 376 which follow that ruling. The first of these cases has been expressly dissented from in the Madras case referred to above, and I ...
Balaji Singh Vs. Chakka Gangamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad85; (1926)51MLJ641
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the execution of the mortgage deed sued on, Ex. A, has been proved. The District Munsif held that it was validly executed and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that its execution was not properly proved. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The evidence of the two attesting witnesses is to the effect that they did not actually see the executant signing the document. P.W. 2 says:I did not see the and defendant sign Ex. A or the 1st defendant put her mark in it. It was written somewhere.3. P.W. 3 says:I was not present when Ex. A was written. The parties to it came to me and the defendants asked me to attest it saying they executed it.4. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge would be correct but for Act XXVII of 1926, for the law was that in order to prove the execution of a document the attesting witness...
Vaidyanatha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Yogambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad140; (1926)51MLJ695
Ramesam, J.1. The 9th and 10th defendants are the appellants before us. The suit is for partition between the members of the family. The family had become divided in status long ago. The present suit is for division by metes and bounds. The plaintiff is the widow of one Muthuswami Aiyar who died in 1904 and claims under his will. The appeal relates to the subject-matter of the fourth issue, namely, items, 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 which are unenfranchised hereditary personal inams.2. Two points have been raised for the appellants: (1) That the suit is not maintainable in a Civil Court under Section 4 of the Pensions Act, and (2) that the plaintiff has no right to a share in these items either as heir or as devisee.3. Taking the first point, Section 4 of the Pensions Act enacts that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government. Now, remembering that 'an enactment of a character which de...
Kuthala Mudaliar Vs. Venkata Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad253
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may first be stated. The trustees of the Nachiar Devasthanam, Srivalliputtur, applied under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act for the sale of the holding of a defaulter on account of arrears of rent due for Faslis 1323 and 1324 to the Devasthanam. One sale was held on the 11th of February 1916, for rent due for Fasli 1323, and another sale was held on 20th February 1916, for rent due for Fasli 1324. In both these sales the plaintiff purchased for Rs. 45 and Rs. 55 respectively and the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession also. One Kothai Ammal, wife of the present 4th defendant, presented an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer saying that the properties sold were purchased by her before the Estates Land Act, and that the defaulter had no interest in them at the time of the sales and that she ought not to be dispossessed. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed that petition. His order could have been passe...
In Re.: Biswanath Das
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad533
1. The appellant in this case is a member of the Legislative Council and President of the Taluk Board, Chatrapur, and he has been convicted of criminal breach of trust in that he in his capacity as President of the Taluk Board dishonestly disposed of two sums of Rs. 1,385 and Rs. 725, being items of Taluk Board Funds, in violation of the Local fund Rules under which he was entrusted with these moneys. The first sum was general Taluk Board funds and the second was part of a provincial grant made by the Local Government to relieve water scarcity. It is admitted that for Rs. 1,385 the appellant drew contingent bills on 15th March, 1922, which were cashed at the Treasury next day, and that for Rs. 725 he drew contingent bills on 15th March, 1922, which after objections were cashed on 23rd March, 1922. It is also not disputed that appellant was leaving the District for a few days on 15th March, 1922, and that he left instructions in writing Ex. H with his Head Clerk to pay over these sums w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »