Chennai Court January 1927 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.
(Kolleppa) Seshayya Vs. Vedumada Hammayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1109
Jackson, J.1. Second appeal from the decree of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge of Narasapur in A. S. No. 152 of 24 from the decree of the District Munsif of Narasapur in O. S. No. 459 of 22. The plaintiff sued for specific performance alleging that the defendant 1 agreed in July 1922 to sell a house to plaintiff for Rs. 1300/- The District Munsif dismissed the suit and the Additional Subordinate Judge decreed for plaintiff specific performance as against defendant 1 in regard to his half share of the house for Rs. 650/- Defendant 3 appeals. It has been found that the house was jointly owned by defendant 1 and his wife defendant 2 and that defendant 1 had no authority to contract to sell on behalf of his wife. The plaintiff has refused to take advantage of his privilege under Section 15, Specific Relief Act, and the question for determination is whether Section 16 of that Act applies. I think that William Graham v. Krishna Chandra Dey is directly in point. It reverses Krishna Chand...
Unnamalai Ammal Vs. F. W. Wilson and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1187; 103Ind.Cas.869
1. Mr. Rajagopal Iyengar has argued this appeal with great courage but the course of decisions in this Presidency and elsewhere is completely and absolutely against him though he has been able to call one or two dicta which are susceptible of being construed as a hint that a wife entitled to maintenance in certain circumstances will have a charge ipso facto created. That very general language has to be very much cut down when one comes to the actual decisions. It is enough for me to cite Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangamma [1904] 27 Mad. 45 where it is clearly set out that the maintenance of a wife by a husband is a personal obligation upon him arising from the existence of the relations. It is independent of the possession of any property by the husband and it is inevitably postponed to the claims of creditors Of course, it is postponed to any alienation of the husband's property and any attempt to create a charge in favour of the wife would a fortiorii be postponed in the event of an...
W. Subbalakshmi Ammal Vs. Narasiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.360
1. These two appeals arise out of O.S. No. 14 of 1922 in the Court of the District Judge of Chingleput which was instituted under the following circumstances: The plaintiffs in the suit two undivided brothers, are the sons of one of the sisters of one Venusamiah who died on the 4th of June, 1917. The 1st defendant is the widow of Samaiyah, a divided brother of the said Venusamiah, who had also a younger brother Seetharamiah. The latter died leaving a widow Kanniammal, who died on the 4th of April, 1917. The properties in her possession came to Venusamiah who enjoyed them till his death. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit properties consisting of those which belonged to Venusamiah and Kanniammal were in the enjoyment of Venusamiah, that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to these properties under the Hindu Law and the 1st defendant who had no right whatever to the properties took unlawful possession of them along with others after Venusamiah's death. Consequent on disputes be...
Ahobilachariar and ors. Vs. Thulasi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad830; 103Ind.Cas.281
JUDGEMENTRamesam, J.1. The facts of the second appeal may be stated first. Defendant 1 Ahobilachariar, defendant 2 Vedavyasachari, and the plaintiff's husband Padmanabhachariar were brothers. They had certain ancestral properties. Their maternal grandfather Magarappachariar executed a will dated 27th December 1878, dividing his property into two parts and giving one share to his elder daughter Thulasi Ammal and her sons, i. e. the above said Ahobilachariar and brothers and the other share to his younger daughter, and her sons. We are now concerned with the first share. Plaintiffs case is that the two defendants and her husband took that share in 1910. They divided the whole property consisting of the ancestral property and the property derived from their maternal grandfather, and in such division the suit items fell to the share of Padmanabhachariar who enjoyed from 1910 to 26th October 1918, when he died, and that they were trespassed upon by the defendants. She, therefore, sues to re...
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Battula Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ226
Krishnan, J.1. The facts out of which this Second Appeal arises are as follows :--The appellants who are landlords brought three suits, O.S. Nos. 271, 272 and 275 of 1909 against various tenants for ejectment. They originally filed the suits in the District Munsif's Court, but the High Court finally held that the suits were not filed in the proper Court which was the Revenue Court and directed the plaints to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. There was an appeal to the Privy Council, Appeal No. 55 of 1916, in which the three cases were consolidated into one appeal. The decision of the Privy Council is reported in Suryanarayana v. Patanna ILR (1918) M 1012 : 1918 36 MLJ 585. We are not concerned in the present proceedings with the reasons of the Privy Council nor with their ruling itself. It would seem that pending the hearing of the Privy Council appeal, one Seshayya, defendant in O.S. No. 272 of 1909 died, and no legal representative was brought on record and the decisi...
Narayanan, Minor by Next Friend Palani Goundan Vs. Pappayi Alias Karup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad788; 103Ind.Cas.499; (1927)53MLJ229
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The legal representative of the original 4th defendant judgment-debtor in this case is the petitioner before me. He applied to the Lower Court under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 for setting aside the sale made by the Court of Items Nos. 2 and 3 under the decree. After the decree was passed, by a special decretal order, which is now admitted, the Court directed that Items Nos. 2 and 3 under the decree should be sold first and that it is only thereafter, if the sale proceeds thereof should be found insufficient to satisfy the decree, Item No. 1, of which the 4th defendant had become the purchaser after the suit mortgage, should be sold. The Lower Court without going into the merits of the application or the grounds on which the sale was sought to be set aside has dismissed the application on the mere preliminary ground that the petitioner was not a person entitled to apply for setting aside the sale within the meaning of Rule 90. The expression used in tha...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Saidali Kutti and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad624
Jackson, J.1. Appeal by Government against acquittal of accused in C. C. No. 163 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirur. Accused was prosecuted by the Ponani Taluk Board for failure to take out license under schedule VII (c), Madras Act 14 of 1920, for a shed in which he stored or otherwise dealt with fish. Accused is admittedly a forwarding agent who collects packages of fish and consigns them elsewhere. A day or two may elapse before consignment when accused keeps the fish in a rented shed. Is this storing or otherwise dealing with? The Sub-Magistrate answers the question in the negative without any argument. The case is not parallel with that in Emperor v. Wallace Flour Mill Co. [1905] 29 Bom. 193 where it was held that oil stored for the lubrication of a machine on the premises was not stored within the mischief of Section 394, City of Bombay Municipal Act. When goods are kept in a shed or godown with a view to their subsequent consignment it is the best il...
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Kosuri Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1088; 103Ind.Cas.618
Krishnan, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are as follows: The appellants who are landlords brought these suits O. S. 271, 272 and 275 of 1909 against the various tenants for ejectment. They originally filed the suits in the District Munsif's Court, but the High Court finally held that the suits were not filed in the proper Court which was the revenue Court, and directed the plaint to be returned for re-presentation to the proper Court. There was an appeal to the Privy Council, A. S. 55 of 1916, in which the three cases were consolidated into one appeal. The decision of the Privy Council is reported in Suryanarayana v. Pattanna A. I. R. 1918 P. C. 169 We are not concerned in the present proceedings with the reasons of the Privy Council, nor with their ruling itself. It would seem that pending the hearing of the Privy Council appeal, one Seshayya, defendant in O. S. 272 of 1909, died, and no legal representative was brought on record before them. It is now argued by...
Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. A.L.S.R.P.L. Subrahmanya Chettiar by His Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.394; (1927)52MLJ612
Krishnan, J.1. The first point taken in this appeal by the lst defendant-appellant is that the arrangement as to interest at 24 per cent. per annum amounts to an unconscionable bargain and that in any event the stipulation to pay compound interest at the same rate of 24 per cent with six monthly rests is one by way of penalty and should be relieved against. It is pointed out that the transaction is a hypothecation and that the property hypothecated f6rms ample security for the amount borrowed Rs. 25,000.2. No doubt the rate of interest agreed to is high but I am not prepared to say that it is so exceedingly high as in itself to lead to the inference of the bargain being an unconscionable one. There is no evidence of any domination of the will of the debtor by the,creditor. The money was borrowed for speculating in cotton and the 1st defendant apparently expected to make large profits in it and agreed of his own accord to pay the high interest for cash down hoping that he would be able ...
Sri Ranga Thathachariar, Late a Minor by Next Friend Komalathammal, bu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad801; (1927)53MLJ189
1. This is an appeal preferred by the minor plaintiff against the final decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in a suit for partition instituted by the minor plaintiff represented by his mother as next friend against the first defendant, who is his step-brother, and several others. The plaintiff is the son of the late Varadachariar, a resident of Coimbatore, by his third wife and the first defendant is the son by his second wife. Both the plaintiff and the first defendant were minors at the time of their father's death which occurred in November, 1913. The first defendant became a major in December, 1916 and since then he was acting as the manager of the family and the plaintiff is still a minor. The plaintiff's suit for partition was instituted on the 14th August, 1918 and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on the 7th April, 1921. One of the questions involved in this case is when did the plaintiff and the first defendant become divided in statu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »