Chennai Court September 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.
ismalsa Rowther Vs. Sadasiva Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad304
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for possession of a house with mesne profits. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit but on appeal the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether Article 47 applies to the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff purchased the plaint house on 20th June 1919. There was a possession case between the plaintiff and the defendants in 1919 and the Subdivisional First Class Magistrate at Tanjore passed an order on 19th August 1919 in plaintiff's favour.3. The plaintiff presented his plaint on 21-12-22, that is, more than three years after the date of the order of the First Class Magistrate. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit ought to have been brought within three years of the order of the Magistrate. The question is, is the plaintiff in whose favour an order under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. has be...
Punyam Visvananda Reddi Vs. Gali Raja Venkata Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad278
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the sale to him by the Defendants 2 to 4 is a bona fide transaction and that the plaint property is not liable for attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained against his vendors. The District Munsif held that:the sale deed relied on by plaintiff is not true, valid and binding on 1st defendant but it is a sham transaction unsupported by consideration and executed with a view to defraud 1st defendant of his debtand dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the sale deed Exhibit B wasa clearly colourable and fraudulent transaction and cannot prevail against 1st defendant.2. The plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.3. The only point urged by Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Ayyar for the appellant before us is that his client is entitled to a charge for the amount of consideration paid by him. Both the Courts have found that about Rs. 500 was paid by the plaintiff out of a nominal consideration of Rs. 2...
Vadakke Chathilingath Kaliani Amma and ors. Vs. Vadakke Chathilingath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad299; (1927)52MLJ17
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the property standing in the name of the 1st defendant is her absolute property or property belonging to her and her children. Both the Lower Courts have found that the property was the absolute property of the 1st defendant. This is a question of fact and the finding of both the Courts is on the evidence in the case. But Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for the appellant contends that the presumption of law that property given to the mother by the father is for the benefit of herself and her children has not been kept in view by the Lower Courts in considering the evidence in this case. Reliance is placed by him upon two decisions of the Travancore Chief Court for the position that there is a presumption in such cases that the property is the property of the mother and the children. Tn Narayanan v. Parvathi Nangali (1062) 5 TLR 116. it was held thatGifts by the father known in Travancore as Makkathayam, and in British Malabar as Puthravaka...
R.E. Mahomed Kassim and Co. Through R.A. Abdul Kadir, the Authorised A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad265; (1927)52MLJ240
Krishnan, J.1. The suit from which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff on a judgment of the Supreme Court of Penang-obtained By him against 1st and 2nd defendants and one Pichai Haji, deceased, whose legal representatives are defendants 3 to 6. That suit was on a deed of composition Exhibit F executed by the said three persons for money due on dealings in Penang, Though they were British Indian subjects, they were at the time of the suit in Penang, resident within the jurisdiction of the Penang Court. At the hearing of that suit they did not appear in Court to contest it. They were declared to have been properly served, the present 1st Defendant having been served personally and the two others by substituted service. In accordance with a rule of procedure of that Court by which, in suits in which Defendants, being properly served, do not appear and contest, judgment is given for the plaint--claim without any trial, judgment was entered up in favour of the Plaintiff as a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›