Chennai Court November 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.
Kizhakkumbrath MoidIn Vs. Koyambrath Murkothkandi Pakki Musaliar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.738
1. This second appeal has been filed by the 12th defendant the kanom in whose favour made by the 1st defendant purporting to act as the karnavan of the suit tarwad was sought to be set aside. In the trial Court, this kanom was set aside as a transaction not binding on the tarwad. In the Court of Appeal the decree parsed in the trial Court was confirmed. It has been found that the kanom was for a sum of Rs. 230 and also that this sum of Rs. 230 WAS necessary for the purpose of paying off a decree binding on the tarwad for the same amount. This is found by the lower Appellate Court. It, therefore, follows that the raising of this amount for the tarwad has been found by the lower Appellate Court to be necessary. The only question then is whether the transaction of kanom made by the 1st defendant was a proper transaction. Both the lower Courts have taken the view that having regard to the term of the kanom and other possible means of raising the same amount for the tarwad the transaction c...
Gnanamani Nadathi Vs. Esunadian Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad797; 110Ind.Cas.439
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner, the father-in-law of the. testator Samuel Nadar. Under his will he made his brother-in-law, Manuel, Nadar, the executor and the latter apparently administered the estate for four years and then renounced his office by Ex. 1 on 28th August 1922. It is contended that this renunciation is invalid in law under the provisions of Section 230, Succession Act. That section says:The renunciation may be made orally in the presence of the Judge or by writing signed by the person renouncing....2. There is nothing in the section to show that the writing also must be in Court; it is sufficient if there is a written renunciation and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court. It must, therefore be held that Manuel Nadar renounced the executorship, and, therefore, the argument based upon Section 229, namely, that it was necessary to issue a. citation to him has no force. As there is no executor, or ra...
Arumilli Veeraragavalu Vs. Arumilli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad816
1. It has been held in a long series of cases beginning with Unni v. Kunchi Amma [1891] 14 Mad. 26: see also Kamaraju v. Gunnayya A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 322 that a minor has not got to set aside the transaction by a guardian in suing to recover the property. He can ignore the transaction and merely pray for possession. That being so, he does not seek cancellation of the instrument. In this respect, his position is different from that of an adult executing the document himself as pointed out in Unni v. Kunchi Amma [1891] 14 Mad. 262. Therefore, Clause (4-A), Section 7, Court-fees Act, does not apply. We do not agree with the decision in Alagar Aiyangar v. Srinivasa Ayyangar : AIR1925Mad1248 . In such cases it is proper that the plaintiff should not add unnecessary prayers to confuse the Court and himself. When such prayers-are unnecessary it is best to expunge them. In the present case the plaintiff is willing to expunge the words in prayer (1) from the words 'setting aside.' If he does so, t...
Asumilli Veeraraghavalu Vs. Asumilli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.96
1. It has been held in a long series of cases beginning with Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M.P 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19 see also Putievu Kamraju v. Chunduri Gunnayya : AIR1924Mad322 that a minor has not got to set aside the transaction by a guardian in suing to recover the property. He can ignore the transaction and merely pray for possession. That being so, he does not seek cancellation of the instrument. In this respect, his position is different from that of an adult executing the document himself as pointed out in Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M.P 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19.2. Therefore, Clause iv(a) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act does not apply. We do not agree with the decision in Alagar Iyengar v. Srinivasa Iyengar : AIR1925Mad1248 .3. In such cases it is proper that the plaintiff should not add unnecessary prayers to confuse the Court and himself. When such prayers are unnecessary it is best to expunge them. In the present case the plaintiff is willing to expunge the words in prayer Un...
P.C. Muthu Chettiar Vs. Narayanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.63; (1928)55MLJ274
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. For a proper understanding of the various points raised and discussed in this Civil Revision Petition it is necessary that a few material facts should be set out. The petitioner before us obtained a decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1908 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura East. It was a decree for money and dated 25th February, 1908. After various execution petitions with which we are not at present concerned E.P. No. 36 of 1920 was filed on the 23rd February, 1920, that is to say, a few days before the expiry of 12 years, the time limited for execution of decrees under the Procedure Code. On the 27th September, 1921 final orders were passed on certain claims made in respect of attachment issued in execution and on that date a further order was made in the following words : 'Sale papers to be filed by 11th October, 1921.' Somehow or other, on the forenoon of 11th October, 1921 this execution petition appears to have been called and, in the absence of...
Shariba Beebi Alias Ammani Ammal Vs. Abdul Salam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ565
1. This is an application against an order restoring a suit to file which had been dismissed ex parte. The defendants are said to have been served by substituted service but they did not appear, and not until a year after the date of the decree did they apply to set it aside. The District Munsif has merely found, because he thinks that the defendants had a good defence to the suit, that they could not have had notice, and if they had been properly served, they would not have failed to appear, and finding that they could not have been properly served, he restored the suit. If, however, substituted service was effected under Order 5, Rule 20, such service is as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally, and must be deemed to be due service within the meaning of Article 164 of the Limitation Act. This view has been held in two previous cases, Doraiswami Aiyar v. Balasundaram Aiyar (1926) 52 M.L.J. 477 and Narasimha Chettiar v. Balakrishna Chetty (1926) 52 M.L.J. 512 to ...
Sonachalam Pillai (Dead) and Ten ors. Vs. Kumaravelu Chettiar and Six ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ587
Devadoss, J.1. The question whether Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is controlled by Order 1, Rule 8, referred to by us to the Full Bench has been answered in the negative and the question of fact whether O.S. No. 14 of 1877 was filed and allowed to proceed in a representative capacity is left for our decision. Mr. Justice Ramesam who delivered the leading judgment of the Full Bench observes at the close of his judgment.--It is still open to the learned Judges to find whether the Subordinate Judge who tried the former suit with reference to the issues, findings etc., meant to allow the suit to proceed in a representative capacity for the benefit of the Vaniyars. As I think there is no express finding and as it is a question of fact, we have nothing to do with the matter. I only observe that it is open to them to so find, if they choose to do so with reference to the pleadings, the issues, judgment and decree.In our reference we state:From the pleadings, from th...
Kumaraswami Asari and Two ors. Vs. Poojari Lakshmana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.298; (1928)54MLJ629
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These applications arise out of an appeal preferred against the final decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in O.S. No. 4 of 1916. The suit was by three worshippers who had obtained the necessary sanction of the Collector under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, for a scheme and other reliefs relating to the Sri Kandaswami, also known as Subramania Swami temple. One of the defences of the defendants who were the pujaries of the temple was that the temple was not a public temple, but a private one. The Subordinate Judge upheld the contention and dismissed the suit. On appeal there was difference of opinion between two learned judges and the matter went up to a Full Bench of this Court and was decided in Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1917 that the temple was a public temple and the suit was remanded for the purpose of framing a scheme and determining the properties of the temple. Against this judgment of the High Court an appeal was preferred to their Lordshi...
(Sankuratri) Dorayya and anr. Vs. Govindarajulu Narasimham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad525; 110Ind.Cas.567
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent to declare his title and recover possession of the property mentioned in the plaint.2. The facts are shortly these: The plaintiff obtained two mortgages on this property and other properties, and obtained a mortgage-decree. He brought the property to sale in execution of the mortgage-decree, and purchased the property on 21st January 1921. Defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants, purchased the property in execution of a rent decree. The sale was on 27th November 1920. The rent decree was passed by a revenue Court and it declared that the property was subject to a first charge for the rent. On 22nd November 1920 the plaintiff filed a claim petition which was dismissed as too late without any enquiry. In the claim petition, Ex. 4, all that he prayed was foran order on the plaintiff to get the property sold in execution subject to the mortgage-decreeobtained by the petitioner. He sets out in the petition his mortgage and it does not...
Shariba Beeby Alias Ammani Ammal Vs. Abdul Salam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.490
This is an application against an order restoring a suit to file which bad been dismissed ex parte. The defendants are said to have been served by substituted service but they did not appear, and not until a year after the date of the decree did they apply to set it aside. The District Munsif has merely found, because he thinks that the defendants had a good defence to the suit, that they could not have had notice and if they had been properly served they would not have failed to appear, and finding that they could hot have been properly served he restored the suit. If, however, substituted service was effected under Order V. Rule 20, such service is as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally and must be deemed to be due service within the meaning of Article 164 of the Limitation Act. This view has been held in two previous cases Doraiswami Aiyar v. Balasundaram Iyer : AIR1926Mad558 and Narsimha Chettiar v. Balakrishna Chetty : AIR1927Mad487 to the latter of which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »