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.
Nagur Pichai Rowther by His Power Agent Subramania Pillai Vs. Rakkappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.202
Ramesam, J.1. In this second appeal 4th defendant is the appellant. It arises out a suit for partition. Plaintiff's father, 1st defendant, and the 3rd defendant's father were brothers. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is an alienee of two of the items in the plaint schedule, he having purchased the property under Ex. I, dated 28th February, 1908, for Rs. 1,900. The Munsif dismissed the suit as one for partial partition. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit. The 4th defendant, therefore, appeals.2. The first point argued before me is whether the suit is bad for partial partition. The Subordinate Judge held that it is not open to an alienee to raise such a point. It is true that where a member of the family sues for partition and recovery of his share of an alienated item alone, such a point is not open to the alienee. But I doubt if there is any general rule that an objection on the ground that the suit is one for partial parti...
Govindasami Chettiar Vs. K. Kothandapani Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad111; (1927)52MLJ203
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff for a share in certain properties (now reduced to a family house) as a coparcener. The plaintiff, the 1st defendant's father and one Kothandapani Chetti were sons of one Gopal Chetty. The youngest son became a convert to Mahomedanism, the second son predeceased his father and the eldest son, the plaintiff, was absent for many years, some 18, in the Straits Settlements. During his absence the youngest brother, now a Mahomedan, conveyed his share in the property in question to a stranger, the 2nd defendant, and in 1902 the mother of the 1st defendant effected a mortgage on the property and in 1915 the 1st defendant conveyed the property to the 3rd defendant with a covenant that he should pay off the mortgage. The question therefore is as to the plaintiff's right in the house.2. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was entitled to one-third share of the house and one-third in the land. As to the latter there is no appeal and we are not ...
In Re: V. Ramanadham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ207
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the judgment in C.C. No. 33 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vizianagram, whereby he has been fined Rs. 25 under Section 41, Indian Factories Act (XII of 1911) for employing children in his factory in contravention of Section 23.2. The first ground taken is that the dyeing (probably, drying) yard in which the children were employed does not form part of the factory.3. This place is five or six yards from the wall of the building, and has no connection with machinery, or any work incidental to the manufacturing process (D.W. 1).4. A factory as defined by Section 2(3) means any premises wherein, or within the precincts of which.... Pausing here for a moment it may be observed that these terms 'premises' or 'precincts' are the most comprehensive that can be conceived. Premises means the main building and its appurtenances, and lest that should omit any part of the establishment, 'precincts' are added which mean any adj...
Govindan Nayar and anr. Vs. Koipunthil Ammed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad92
Ramesam, J.1. The second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of an otti. Various defences were raised and were made the subject of issues. The 4th issue was 'Is the suit for partial redemption sustainable.' The contention of the defendants was that there was another item which was the subject of otti and that also ought to have been made the subject of the suit. The District Munsif found that that item had been sold in Court auction as early as 1894 and was being held by strangers. He said:There is thus nothing to redeem so far as that item is concerned. It is, therefore, apparent, as urged by the plaintiffs, that the 2nd item was included in Ex. A simply in order to get the document registered in the Payoli Sub-Registrar' s Office and for no other purpose and the parties also understood it in that light.2. He found the issue for the plaintiff. On appeal the District Judge states in para. 2 of his judgment:The preliminary point for determination in this appeal is whether the ott...
Mannattil Krishnah Nair Vs. Sivaramakrishna Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad73
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs' case is that they as inhabitants of the village of Parali have a customary right to graze cattle on a paramba belonging to the 3rd defendant's sthanam to walk across it, to perform certain ceremonies at the foot of the 'arasu' or peepul tree on it, to perform pradakshanam round the tree and use the tank therein for bathing purposes and that the 1st defendant who obtained a melcharath in 1911 obstructed the plaintiffs from enjoying the customary right and, therefore, they are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining him from obsructing them in the enjoyment of their customary right. The District Munsif held that the customary right was not satisfactorily made out and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the enjoyment of the customary right. The 1st defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. There is ev...
Golla Kondamma and ors. Vs. Golla Chinna Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad160
Devadoss, J1. The plaintiffs brought the suit for contribution against the defendants. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that they are not entitled to contribution from the defendants. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. Pedda Subbareddi (1st plaintiff's husband), 1st defendant and one Golla Venkatasubba Reddi were brothers. In 1897 they divided their immovable properties, but did not divide their outstandings and some gold mohurs. Vonkatasubba-reddi brought O. S. No. 29 of 1913 on the file of the District Court of Cuddapah to recover his one-third share of the outstandings and gold mohurs against Pedda Subbareddi and Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The District Court found that Rs. 7,118-14-8 was duo to Venkatasubba Reddi and passed a decree against the legal representative of Pedda Subbareddi for the whole amount and made the 2nd defendant, 1st defendant herein, jointly liable with them for Rs. 2,333-5-4 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. The...
Manikam Pillai Vs. Venkatesa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad494
Deavdoss, J.1. One Kuppi Chetti devised by his Will dated 15th May 1907, his moveable property and immovable properties to three persons subject to the life interest of his wife and his brother's widow. Subramaniam Chetti one of the legatees mortgaged his share of the property devised to him to the plaintiff under Ex. A on 22nd June 1908. The plaintiff has brought the suit on the mortgage and the contention of the defendant is, that inasmuch as Subramaniam Chetti died in the lifetime of Meenakshi Ammal, the widow of the testator, the legacy did not vest in him and the plaintiff could, therefore, have no remedy against the property. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit; but the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissed it. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The only question in this second appeal, is what did the testator mean by the following clauseshould any of the aforesaid persons, viz., Subramaniam Chettiar or minor Venkatesam mentioned above die, the surv...
M.E. Singaravelu Mudali and anr. Vs. Balasubramania Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1126; 97Ind.Cas.938
Ramesam, J.1. This is a petition praying for an injunction restraining the respondent from executing the decree in O.S. No. 41 of 1924 on the file of the District Court of South Arcot pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition No. 1372 of 1925 on the file of the High Court. The facts are as follows: There was a suit for partition in the Sub-Court of Chingleput. This was O.S. No. 3 of 1916. On the 6th of March, 1917, a preliminary decree was passed in it. The present petitioner was one of the plaintiffs in it. After the preliminary decree, the 3rd defendant in the suit filed O.S. No. 41 of 1921 in the District Court of South Arcot at Cuddalore to recover a sum of money from the petitioner and others. The disputes between the parties were settled by a compromise drawn up in the form of two agreements dated 6th October 1922, according to one of which a decree was to be passed in the Cuddalore suit for Rs. 9,000, Rs. 2,000 of which was to be paid within two weeks and the balance in 9 mont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›