Chennai Court October 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.
Thaliyil Manayil Parameshwara Tirumumpa Vs. Valia Narayan Tirumumpa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.655
Devadoss, J.1. Mr. Sivarama Menon for the appellant wants to contest the correctness of the decision in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair 2 Ind. Cas. 183 : 32 M. 351 : 6 M.L.T. 106 : 19 M.L.J. 350. That decision was followed by me and Mr. Justice Spencer in Vazhayil Abuvakkar v. Kunhikuttiyali 74 Ind. Cas. 27 : 16 L.W. 768 : 31 M.L.T. 389 : A.L.R. 1923 Mad. 153. I am not prepared at this stage to refer the appeal to a Bench on the ground that the decision in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair 2 Ind. Cas. 183 : 32 M. 351 : 6 M.L.T. 106 : 19 M.L.J. 350 should be re-considered.2. There is another point in the appeal which requires consideration. The parties belong to a class of Nambudiris who have adopted to some extent the Marumakkathayam Law. The appellant asked the lower Court to take evidence on the question of custom obtaining in the class of Nambudiri families to which the parties belong of the self-acquisition of a male member devolving upon the tavazhi and not upon the tarwad in case he ...
Marina Viranna Vs. Valluri Ramanamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad437
1. This is a suit brought to enforce an agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant's brother took possession of certain properties belonging to the defendant and although there was an attempt to compromise this dispute, that attempt failed and it became necessary for the defendant to file a suit. Plaintiff undertook to assist in the conduct of the suit and also to furnish one-quarter of the costs incurred in the litigation. Defendant agreed that if she was successful the plaintiff should be given one-quarter of the property recovered by her in the litigation. The first question for determination is whether this agreement was executed by the defendant, for she denies having done so. The agreement consists of two documents, Exs. A and A-1, the former executed by the plaintiff to the defendant and the latter by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant is a gosha lady, but it is alleged that in coming to this agreement she was assisted by her husband and ...
Kandaswami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad16
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff's sued to redeem a mortgage. It was alleged that the deceased elder brother of the plaintiff usufructually mortgaged the suit land to the defendant for Rs. 50 on 29th July 1903 under Ex. 1. The defendant while admitting the mortgage pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the property by purchase on 29th October 1906, from plaintiffs 2 and 3 and that his possession subsequent to 1906 was as an absolute owner; and though the sale-deed Ex. 2 of 1906 was unregistered, his possession since 1906 was as absolute owner and that he had acquired absolute title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The plaintiff's impugned Ex. 2 as a forged document, and the. District Munsif found that Ex. 2 was not genuine and accordingly decreed redemption. On appeal by the defendant the learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that Ex. 2 was genuine, that it was executed by plaintiff 2 and attested by plaintiff 3. Holding that Ex. 2 wa...
Seetharama Sastrial Vs. Seetharama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.406
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Court of the Small Causes at Kumbakonam, in S. C.S. No. 980 of 1925. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. In the previous suit the plaintiff asked for possession of the property purchased by him. In that case the Subordinate Judge made him. to pay to the 4th defendant the value of the plantain trees standing on the land sold to him and declined to decide the question whether the sale-deed in his favour conveyed the plantain trees as well. The present suit is for the amount paid by him as compensation to the 4th defendant, who was held entitled to the plantain trees in the previous suit. The contention of Mr. Dasikan for the respondent is that the plaintiff ought to have got his remedy in the previous suit against his vendors and he is not entitled to bring a separate suit. I think this case is covered by the ruling in Venkatarama Ayyar v. Venk...
Anantha Bhatta Vs. Bhandary Krishnayya Shanbhaga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.403
The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal instituted the suit for the purpose of recovering an annuity of 3 mums of rice on the ground that he is the assignee of such right from, one Puthu Bhatta in whose favour such a right was created in Ex. I in this case. The clause in Ex. I relating to it is in these terms: 'The three manigas of belatage rice which are being given annually to Kudapore Puth Bhatta shall be paid by the three sharers at the rate of one maniga of deletage rice each on the responsibility of the share of each in Muli No. 71 of Kundapore Kasba.' In the Court of the District Munsif a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff but this was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge, in the lower Appellate Court on the simple ground in his view that the grant was a personal grant and not in the nature of remuneration attached to an office and as such inalienable under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. Exhibit 1 does not refer to any office and does ...
Kandaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.795
Aaanthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem a mortgage. It was alleged that the deceased elder brother of the plaintiffs usufructuarily mortgaged the suit land to the defendant for Rs. 50 on 29th July, 1903, under Ex. I. The defendant while admitting the mortgage pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the property by purchase on 29th October, 1906, from plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and that his possession subsequent to 1908, was as an absolute owner, and though the sale-deed, Ex. II of 1906, was unregistered, his possession since 1906, was as absolute owner and that he had acquired absolute title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The plaintiffs impugned Ex. II as a forged document, and the District Munsif found that Ex. II was not genuine and accordingly decreed redemption. On appeal by the defendant the learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that Ex. II was genuine, that it was executed by the 2nd plaintiff and attested by the 3rd plain...
Pochiraju Kannamma Vs. Mannava Machamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.497
William Watkins Phillips, J.1. The decision in this appeal depends entirely on the construction of the Will executed by one Pochiraju Ramachandrudu, father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. By this Will ha devised certain properties to his two daughters, such to get one-half, and certain other properties to his sister's two sods. There is then a clause in the Will as follows :My daughters,...and my sister's sons...shall each enjoy...his or her respective portions of the property divided to them hereditarily and at their pleasure, with right of alienation by gift, sale or otherwise.2. This clearly gives an absolute estate to each of the legatees but with respect to the daughters it is followed by a defeasance clause, namely.If out of the said two daughters, Machamma and Kannamma, to either there is no issue, her property shall after her death pass to the other to whom there is issue. If to neither of them there is issue, then the property remaining at the time of the death of the ...
Balasundarachari Vs. A.V. Kanniappachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1165
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. (After setting out the pedigree the judgment continued). In this suit the plaintiff asks that a sale held in pursuance of a decree passed by this Court should be set aside so far as his interest in the property sold is concerned. The decree was obtained by defendant 8 on the footing of a mortgage executed in his favour by Munuswami Achari, Arunagiri Achari ( defendant 4) and Vedagiri Achari (defendant 5). At the sale held defendant 9 purchased the property in question. I must preface my judgment by saying that the only question which I am asked to try is, whether this sale is binding upon the plaintiff. Defendant 9, supported by defendant 8, is contesting the suit. The other defendants either do not appear to defend the action or side with the plaintiff.2. The principal point raised in the case is that Kanniappa, the father of the plaintiff, separated from the family after executing a release-deed dated 12th February 1912 and that the result of that transaction w...
The President, District Board Vs. Ismail Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ204
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. In these petitions the District Board of Anantapur is the petitioner. These arise out of a prosecution instituted by the District Board against the driver and the owner of a bus for infringing the notification issued by the President, District Board, on 11th June, 1926. The 2nd class Magistrate who tried the case acquitted the owner of the bus and convicted the driver under Sections 166 and 207 of the Local Boards Act.2. The appellate Court set aside the conviction of the driver. The District Board has preferred these revision petitions against the order of the Appellate Magistrate and also against the order of the 2nd class Magistrate. The contention for the driver is that it is the owner of the bus that is liable if at all under Sections 166 and 207 and not the driver who is only a servant. Reliance is placed on Velayuda Mudali v. King-Emperor I.L.R. (1919) Mad. 438 : 1919 39 M.L.J. 85. That case has no application to the present. In order to see whether the drive...
M. Duraisami Aiyangar and Brothers Vs. P. Varadarajulu Naidu and 3 ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ647
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application made by the plaintiff for permission to amend his plaint. The amendment proposed affects the 3rd defendant who opposes the application. The question I have to decide is, can the proposed amendment be allowed?2. I shall refer to such allegations in the plaint as are relevant to the present purpose. The suit is brought to enforce an equitable mortgage created by the 1st defendant by his depositing certain title-deeds. There were dealings between the plaintiffs' firm and the 1st defendant's firm and in the course of those dealings the latter executed promissory notes in favour of the former. About the month of December, 1925, there was a sum of a little over Rs. 12,000 due to the plaintiffs and it is alleged that the 1st defendant then deposited with them title-deeds of properties mentioned in Schs. B, C and D to the plaint with a view to create an equitable mortgage over them. Although the deeds were deposited by the 1st defendant it is alleg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »