Chennai Court December 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.
K.R. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Sabapathi Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad657; 110Ind.Cas.141; (1928)54MLJ726
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. My general views on the subject of the pious obligation of the son to pay such debts of his father as are vyavaharika are to be found in several reported cases. So 1 content myself on this occasion with a summary statement of those propositions which I conceive to be established law and which lead up to the exact point which we are called upon to decide.2. So far as I am aware, the obligation is a peculiar feature of Hindu law, and is not to be found in any other organized system of jurisprudence in the world. The obligation is based on a religious doctrine which I should imagine not to be regarded as tenable now-a-days by educated Hindus, even the most orthodox. Under the old Hindu law, the liability was a personal one resting on the son and doubtless did not operate upon him until after the father's death. A series of Privy Council decisions culminating in Brij Narain v. Matigal Prasad (1923) LR 51 IA 129 ; ILR 46 A 95 : 1923 46 MLJ 23 have both ext...
(Koganti) Veerayya Vs. (Narra) Sreesailam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad556
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the orders of the District Munsif of Bezwada in Interlocutory Applications Nos. 1317 and 1318 of 1926 excusing delay in the presentation of an application under Order 9, Rule 4, which otherwise would be barred by limitation.2. The learned District Munsif has confined himself be the laconic order: ' Suit restored to file ' thereby arrogating to himself a general power of dispensing with the law of limitation which is certainly beyond his jurisdiction. Had he applied his mind to the law and facts of the case this Court might consider whether its interference were warranted; but the present proceeding gives room for no such question. Original Suit No. 450 of 1925 was dismissed for default on 27th July 1926. The plaintiff applied for copy-on 29th July 1926 and obtained it on 5th August 1926. He appealed against the decree on 2nd September 1926, and was informed on 27th October 1926, that he had misconceived his remedy and should apply to set asi...
Ramaswami Nadar Vs. Shanmugha Malavarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad909; 108Ind.Cas.894
Wallace, J.1. Order 21, Rule 99, by its wording implies that when the Court is not satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account i. e., if it is not satisfied, e.g. with the claimant's good faith, or that he is in possession on his own account, the Court shall allow the application. The two rulings in Jafferji v. Miyadin A.I.R. 1922. Bom. 273 and Jairam Gadowji v. Nowroji Jameshedji A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 449, are authorities for that proposition, in cases in which the Court found that the obstructer was not in possession on his own account. The same result follows if the Court is satisfied, as the lower Court in this ease was, that the claim was not in good faith. The lower Court, therefore, could have and should have allowed the application under Rule 99. It thought that Rule 99 did not apply and proceeded to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 151. This was unnecessary and in my ...
P. I. Govindaraja Naicker Vs. K. Kassim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.542
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for leave to amend the plaint and it raises the question whether I can grant an amendment in a suit which I have no jurisdiction to try. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff purchased from the 1st and 4th defendants, 7500 trees in a garden situated at Tiruvottiyur beyond the limits of the city of Madras. That garden along with some properties in the city, had been, previously mortgaged by those defendants to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 under two deeds of mortgage, the first of 1917 and the second of 1920.2. The plaintiff, as the purchaser of the trees, alleging a right to redeem, filed the present suit, inter alia, for redemption of the Tiruvottiyur garden (land as well as trees), on payment of Rs. 5,000 a part of the mortgage amount secured by the second mortgage.3. In regard to this relief, the plaintiff's case was, that although the first of the mortgages was for Rs. 19,000 and the second was for Rs. 14,500 there was a clause in the se...
Koganti Veerayya Vs. Narra Sreesilam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.47
Jackson, J.The petition seeks to revise the orders of the District Munsif of Beawada in Interlocutory Applications Nos. 1317 and 1318 of 1926 excusing delay in the presentation of an application undef Order XI, Rule 4 which otherwise would be barred by limitation.The learned District Munsif has confined himself to the laconic order, 'suit restored to file;' thereby arrogating to himself a general power of dispensing with the Law of Limitation which is certainly beyond his jurisdiction. Had he applied his mind to the law and facts of the case, this Court might consider whether its interference were warranted; but the present proceeding gives room for no such question. Original Suit No. 450 of 1925 was dismissed for default on 27th July, 1926. The plaintiff applied for copy on 29th July, 1926, and obtained it on 5th August, 1926. He appealed against the decree on 2nd September, 1926, and was informed on 27th October, 1926, that he had misconceived his remedy and should apply to set aside...
In Re: Perumal Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.651; (1928)54MLJ595a
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. Mr. Watrap S. Subramania Iyer appears for the appellants in two batches of second appeals. He has filed two sets of appeals and he asks for permission to consolidate the 38 into one and the 52 into another and also for permission to produce one vakalatnama in each of the batches. As this is a matter which would involve loss of revenue in case the application is granted, I ordered notice to the Government Pleader and Mr. Venkataramana Rao appears and contends before me that separate vakalatnamas ought to be filed even though the Court is prepared to allow consolidation of the two batches. The power of this Court to consolidate appeals in which the same question is involved, and in which there was only one trial and one judgment in the lower Court, was dealt with by me in a recent case in Which the question of paying process-fee was considered. In England consolidation of cases or matters is regulated by Order XLIX, Rule 8. The power of the High Court to consolidate a...
Selvarayan Samson, by Agent A. Chinnasamy Udayar Vs. S. Amalorpavanadh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ262
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The decree itself was passed in an application filed under Section 20 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure and registered as a suit, a suit.2. The case originally stood posted for the 23rd July, 1924. It was then adjourned to 30th July. On that date the defendant was absent and the Court proceeded ex parte and passed a decree in accordance with the award. Afterwards, on the 11th August, 1924, the defendant filed the present application for. setting aside the ex parte decree. The Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore refused to set aside the ex parte decree by the order dated 22nd September. The defendant filed the present appeal.3. The respondent's vakil takes the preliminary objection that no appeal lies. The appellant meets this contention in two ways. Firstly, he relies on Nihal Singh v. Khushhal Singh I.L.R. (1916) All. 297 and argues that this is a case open to appeal within the meaning of...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.T.T.K.M.M.S.M.A.R. Somasundaram C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad487; (1928)54MLJ436
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there was carried on a business by a Nattukkottai Chetti at various places of which the only two relevant ones are Madras, where his head office was, and Ipoh, a place in the Fedrated Malay States. The short point is this. Money was borrowed by the assessee in Madras and of course interest has to be paid on it in Madras. Part of that money--it does not matter how much because that is a question of fact for the Commissioner who has found a figure--was in effect sent out to Ipoh and was used as capital in the conduct of the Ipoh business. Apparently in all the businesses this gentleman relied on borrowed capital and not his own. Deductions are claimed in this case in respect of the interest paid by the assessee to the persons from whom he borrowed his capital and the Commissioner, has given effect to these deductions so far as they affect the branches in British India, but he disallowed the deduction in respect of the interest paid on such ...
Manikyam and ors. Vs. Sreeramulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad559
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif' of Bezwada allowing an amendment of the plaint at the request of the plaintiffs. Mr. Ch. Raghava Rao for the defendants contends that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to amend the plaint inasmuch as the relief claimed was. beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit was filed in 1924 and the defendants chose to raise the question of jurisdiction after the trial of the case was over and after arguments were heard. They applied by a petition for the amendment of the written statement and the District Munsif allowed the amendment on 28th August 1926. In the written statement the defendants raised the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was one for a declaration and the value of the declaration was considerably over the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court and, therefore, the District Munsif ought not to have entertained the suit. Anticipating on the part of the defend...
Ambi Ayyar Vs. B. Sundaresa Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad823
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, refusing to set aside a sale held on 24th to 26th April 1924, and concluded on 26th April 1924. The appellant complains of several irregularities in the conduct of the sale.2. The first irregularity is not pressed. It relates to the description of the property to be sold. The second irregularity is that the taxes and other payments to which the land is subject was described as Rs. 50 in the proclamation, whereas really it ought to have been Rs. 53-8-2. The property consisted of two lots; lot 1 was subject to an annual assessment of Rs. 51-6-0, and lot 2 to a municipal assessment of Rs. 2-2-2. Thus the total of Rs. 53-8-2 ought to have been mentioned in the column provided for assessment and taxes. But the figure that was mentioned was Rs. 50. The variation is so small that it is very difficult to believe that this variation could have produced any serious injury to the appellant. The price realized in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »