Chennai Court February 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.
Archaka Sundara Raju Dikshatulu Vs. Archaka Seshadri Dikshatulu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad35; (1928)54MLJ76
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for a declaration that the Khanda Bhogiam deed executed by his adoptive father in respect of the lands mentioned in the plaint which are archaka service inam is invalid and for possession of the properties. His case was that the lands are archaka service inam lands granted to his ancestors for the purpose of doing service in Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam, that, on the death of his adoptive father, the plaintiff succeeded to the hereditary office, that as archaka of the temple he is entitled to hold the lands free from any encumbrance, and that his adoptive father purporting to act for himself and as guardian of the plaintiff executed the Khanda Bhogiam deed, dated the 21st of February, 1913, whereby the 1st defendant was put in possession of the properties for a term of 30 years in consideration of a sum of Rs. 8,225 alleged to have been paid to the father. The plaintiff also states that there was no consideration f...
Mooka Kone Alias Vannia Kone and ors. Vs. Pichai Alias Devendra Kone a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ174
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed for the recovery of the estate of one Vannia Konar who was a member of a divided Hindu family and who died in Madura on or about the 27th of June, 1916. He left no sons and the claimants to the estate are his two surviving widows, his half-brother and his three nephews by a deceased brother. The following genealogical table as to which there is no dispute sets out the relationship between the parties. Rama Konar. | ____________________________________________________ | | | 1st wife. 2nd wife. 3rd wife. | | | | | | | Vannichi (daughter). Pichai Konar alias _______________________________________ Devendra Konar | | (4th Defendant)Devendra Konar Vannia Konar (pre-deceased (died in June. Vannia Konar). 1916). | | | | | |___________________________________ ______________________________________________ | | | | | | Mooka Konar Krishna Dhanakoti 1st wife Chellayi 2nd wife Ammakutti 3rd wife Rakkayialias Vannia Konar (2nd Ko...
Kottayi Chathukutty Vs. Changanatha Parkum Thottathil Kunhappan and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad776
Jackson, J.1. Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of North Malabar in A. S. No. 270 of 1922 made in O. S. No. 1190 of 1920 on the file of the District Munsif of Nandapuram.2. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the tenant of a shop in Malabar comes within the purview of Act 1 of 1900, Madras; curiously enough the question appears to be res integra. Although the Court must have decided times without number in the lower Courts, nevertheless, there is no ruling of this Court in the matter. In Section 3 'tenant' is defined as including a person who is lessee of land. 'Holding' in Sub-section 3 of Section 3 has no larger connotation than is implied by the language in Sub-section 1. Improvements are set forth in Section 4 and there is nothing in that list which could include the improvement in urban dwellings. I think it is entirely foreign to the intention of the Act to hold that because a house or a shop must necessarily stand upon la...
Mookka Kone Alias Vannia Kone and ors. Vs. Ammakutti Alias Vannichi Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.760
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed for the recovery of the estate of one Vannia Konar who was a member of a divided Hindu family and who died in Madura on or about the 27th of June, 1916. He left no sons and the claimants to the estate are his two surviving widows, his half-brother and his three nephews by a deceased brother. The following genealogical table as to which there is no dispute sets out the relationship between the parties. RAMA KONAR | ______________________________________ | | | Ist wife 2nd wife 3rd wife | Vannichi Pichai Konar | (daughter). Alias Devendra Konar | (defendant No. 4) ____________________________________________________ | | Devendra Konar, Vannia Konar (pre-deceased Vannia (died in June 1916) Konar) | __________________________________ | | | | |Mokka Konar Krishna Konar Dhanakoti Konar |alias Vannia (defendant No.2.) (defendant No. 3.) | Konar | (defendant No. 1.) | ____________________________________________ | | | Ist...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.S. Firm, Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ249
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question propounded for our decision is as follows:In the circumstances of this case, can the assessee, the T.S. Firm, be said to be resident in British India?2. The Income-tax Acts take residence as the test which is no doubt easy enough to apply in the case of an individual but leads to difficulties when you are dealing either with a limited company or a partnership because, as Lord Loreburn pointed out in De Beers Consolidated Mines Co., Ltd. v. Howe (1906) AC 455 it is artificial to talk of the residence of a company which is necessarily a metaphorical expression as:a company cannot eat or sleep though it can keep house and do business.3. He goes on to cite some earlier decisions and concludes thus (earlier decisions which he holds as laying down the rule that a company resides for the purpose of income-tax where its real business is carried on) and he adds:I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central management ...
Makam Lakshmi Narayanappa and ors. Vs. Makam Batchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.829; (1927)53MLJ38
Odgers, J.1. This petition raises rather an interesting point. The parties to a certain suit referred their differences to arbitration and the arbitrators made an award based on certain documents, Exs. XXVI, XXVII and XXXIII, which contain certain figures on which the arbitrators based their decision. According to the District Munsif certain portions of Exs. XXVI and XXVII were torn and Ex. XXXIII carried out or carried forward the total which it is thought would have appeared in the missing portions of Exs. XXVI and XXVII. Both sides put in all the three exhibits and relied on them and the arbitrators made their award substantially on the basis of the figures contained in these three exhibits, which figures, as far as I can understand, were unquestioned by either side. Now, it is found that in these figures there is a mistake of exactly one thousand rupees owing to a mistake in addition of the sums carried forward into document Ex. XXXIII. The petitioner, who, I assume, is the person ...
Semba Parayan Vs. Maral and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad674; (1927)52MLJ711
1. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one Karuppa Parayan, deceased, by his senior wife and are the reversionary heirs to his property after the lifetime of the 1st defendant, their (father's junior wife. The 1st defendant executed a release deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 771 of 1921 and these two defendants together executed a sale deed and a mortgage deed in favour of the 3rd defendant in O. S. Nos. 770 and 772 of 1921. The plaintiffs as reversioners instituted three suits to declare that the release, the mortgage and the sale are not binding upon them. The 2nd defendant alone contested the suits. His plea is that he is the adopted son of Karuppa Parayan and so is entitled to the suit lands and that the plaintiffs have no right to question his acts. He also pleaded that the suits are barred by limitation. The suits have been filed admittedly six years after the alleged adoption and within about two years after the suit transactions. The two important issues in the ...
Musunuri Venkatanarayana Vs. Tennamani Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad945a
1. (This appeal first came on for hearing on 26th and 27th January 1927).2. We agree with the view taken by Devadoss, J., of the cases cited by the appellant; those relating to mortgagors' suits for redemption and possession ( such as In re Krishnaswami Pathan [1910] 9 M. L. T. 173 are distinguishable on the ground that the mortgagor seeks possession. As to the cases relating to mortgagee's suits for sale, it is true that some cases lay down that, when the joinder has been made and a decree was passed on the paramount title, it is not merely an irregularity which vitiates the finding. No case lays down that the defendant is bound to raise the question relating to the paramount title. We are not able to agree with the decision in Srimantha Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi : AIR1924Cal138 where no reasons are given for the view taken.3. The Letters Patent appeal is dismissed.4. This appeal came on for final hearing on 4th February 1927.Judgment5. The plaint alleged common enjoyment by the family...
Venkatachalam Chetti, Minor by Next Friend S.A.S.R.M. Ramanathan Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad668; (1927)52MLJ709
Jackson, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 334 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi is not binding upon the two plaintiffs. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge concurred with him as regards the 1st plaintiff but found that the 2nd plaintiff was entitled to the declaration prayed for. Accordingly the defendant appeals by his legal representative.2. It is significant that in the issues framed in the first Court the pleas of fraud' and collusion were given up and on turning to the plaint I do not find that any of the pleas in it were advanced. It is now argued that negligence apart from fraud and collusion would have been a good plea but it is not to be found in the plaint and the issues. Considering that it is a question of fact it is too late to take the point as the learned Subordinate Judge has taken it in appeal. That negligence is a question of fact is laid down in Karri Bapanma v. Yerramma : AIR1923Mad718 ....
Govindaswami Koundan and Two ors. Vs. Kandaswami Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ489
Odgers, J.1. In this case the assignee decree-holder has applied under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code for a decree that the mortgagor be directed to pay the difference between the amount realised by the sale of the hypotheca and the amount due to the plaintiff on his mortgage. The request has been refused by the District Munsif and allowed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, and it is against this allowance of the personal remedy that the appeal has come to us here.2. The mortgage was one of 1905 and the suit on it was brought in 1912. The plaint in the mortgage suit is printed as Ex. A and it asks for sale of the mortgaged property anddirecting that if there be still any balance even after the auction sale, the 1st defendant personally and the family properties of defendants 1, 2 and 3 be held responsible therefor.3. The argument of the learned vakil for the appellants is that the plaintiff having asked for that personal relief and the decree which appears as Ex. I being...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »