Chennai Court March 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.
Muthusamy Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad950
Wallace, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgments in connected suits. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: One Palani Goundan was the father of one Kavundai Goundan, who is defendant 5 in O. S. No. 559 of 1921. His sons are defendants 6 to 8. Defendant 5 sold certain family property under Ex. B to defendants 1 to 4, who in their turn sold it to the plaintiff under Ex. C. The sale covered eight items. Plaintiff claimed that they were all defendant 5's properties at the time of the sale by him to defendants 1 to 4, that defendant 5 had separated from his family and had got items 1 to 4 and 8 for his share and that as regards 5, 6 and 7 they were his self-acquisition. The contest in the suits ranged round the question whether Palani Goundan was still joint with defendant 5 and his sons, and whether items 5, 6 and 7 were the self-acquisitions of defendant 5. The lower appellate Court has decided that there was no partition between Palani Goundan and hi...
Thiruvengadasami Iyengar Vs. Govindasamy Udaiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad943
Jackson, J.1. The question is raised whether in the light of Munshi Raghunath Singh v. Hazari Sahu [1917] 2 Pat. L. J. 130 my direction as regards the sale was correct. I cannot see that it is incorrect within the terms of Order 21, Rule 66. A Court undertaking to give valuation which would be a real guide to a bidder even if it did not inspect the property itself, would at any rate, have to accumulate copious data and hold an elaborate inquiry. The law requires that the Court as fairly and accurately as possible shall state anything which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know. If it considers a fair and accurate report of the value given by three persons material for the purchaser and nothing more in that particular respect, the Court will not, in my opinion, have erred. If it itself mistakes the value, that is an entirely different matter, and it is that which the Privy Council, is considering in Sadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar [1898] 20 All. 412 cf. Sivasami Naicker v. Ra...
(Dewan Bahadur) C. Krishnamachariar Vs. P. Arunachala Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad973
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge has not rendered the task of this Court any the easier by entirely omitting to give reasons for his order although the matter was the subject of controversy in his Court. The plaintiff is suing the Secretary of State and certain purchasers of his property which was sold by the Secretary of State for arrears of abkari revenue. The ground which he originally took in para. 9 of his plaint is that owing to the political circumstances of 1921 he was unable to perform his part of the contract and for those reasons no abkari rent was legally due. He now wishes by the new amendment to plead that he never entered into a contract at all. I think that this cannot be described otherwise than as a new cause of action and it is useless to attempt to describe it as an amplification or another legal aspect of the plaintiff's case. If it is a new caus...
Peria Muthuswami Naicken Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1018a
Wallace, J.1. Defendant 2 executed a promissory note to the plaintiff on 27th July 1919. He was then the junior paternal uncle and de facto guardian of the minor, defendant 1. The promissory note was for the discharge of a mortgage debt over the minor's estate. In the body of the promissory note defendant 2 described himself as guardian and junior paternal uncle of the minor Somasundra Mudaliar (defendant 1), and he signed it as 'Ramanatha Mudaliar Karnam.' The point for decision in this case is whether he signed the note in his capacity as de facto guardian of defendant 1.2. Now, in a matter of negotiable instruments which may pass from hand to hand to persons who have no personal knowledge of the original parties at all, the law that it must be clear on the face of the note who has executed it and whose estate is liable for it must be interpreted more strictly than in the case of a contract, and citations of cases which deal with contracts seem to me of little value in this connexion...
(Chitturi) Sriramulu Vs. (Somisetti) Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1102a
Wallace, J.1. I am satisfied that the decree of the lower Court cannot stand. It is clear that the gift to plaintiff is, not contained in the will. Therefore, defendant was not, in his capacity as executor, bound to carry out Pallamma's promise to give. The plaintiff's case as given in the evidence is that defendant was in possession of some of Pallamma's property, as agent, and, as her agent, promised to carry out her instruction to pay Rs. 50 to plaintiff. But, on this footing, it is clear that when the promise to give could not, in law, be enforced against the principal, it cannot be enforced against the agent.2. Plaintiff urges that there was consideration for the promise fixing liability on the defendant personally, arguing that defendant was made a legatee under the will only in consideration of his promise to pay Rs 50 to plaintiff. Nothing of this kind is suggested in the plaint nor is it really within the bounds of probability that Pallamma would not have executed the will in ...
Sri Ranganatha Thathachariar and anr. Vs. Veeravalli Rajagopalachariar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad16
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. Defendants 2 and 5, who are appellants in the lower Court are interested in this appeal. The plaintiff's action was for the recovery of possession of certain properties which he claimed to have succeeded to on the death of a qualified owner on the ground that he was the nearest reversioner when the succession opened. Defendants 2 and 5 were interested only in a single item of property in the schedule item 1. The appellate Court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is said that defendants 2 and 5 did not know of the date of the hearing and in any case were not in a position to adduce evidence. It would appear that they afterwards applied to the trial Court for setting aside the decree pissed against them and for being allowed to adduce such evidence as they had with regard to the issues in which they were interested; but that application was rejected. On appeal the District Judge has written a judgment which I cannot help characterizing extremely ...
Dewan Bahadur C. Krishnamachariar Vs. P. Arunachala Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.563
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge has not rendered the task of this Court any the easier by entirely omitting to give reasons for his order although the matter was the subject of controversy in his Court. The plaintiff is suing the Secretary of State and certain purchasers of his property which was sold by the Secretary of State for arrears of abkari revenue. The ground, which he originally took in para. 9 of his plaint is that owing to the political circumstances of 1921 he was unable to perform his part of the contract and for those reasons no abkari rent was legally due. He now wishes by the new amendment to plead that he never entered into a contract at all. I think, that this cannot be described otherwise than as a new cause of action and it is useless to attempt merely to describe it as an amplification or another legal aspect of the plaintiff's case. If it is a...
Chitturi Sriramulu Vs. Somisetti Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.214
Wallace, J.1. I am satisfied that the decree of the lower Court cannot stand. It is clear that the gift to plaintiff is not contained in the Will. Therefore, defendant was not, in his capacity as executor, bound to carry out Pallamma's promise to give. The plaintiff's case as given in the evidence is that defendant was in possession of some of Pallamma's property, as agent, and, as her agent, promised to carry out her instruction to pay Rs. 50 to plaintiff. But, on this footing, it is clear that when the promise to give could not, in law, be enforced against the principal, it cannot be enforced again3t the agent.2. Plaintiff urges that there wag consideration for the promise fixing liability on the defendant personally, arguing that defendant was made a legatee under the Will only in consideration of his promise to pay Rs. 50 to plaintiff. Nothing of this kind is suggested in the plaint nor is it really within the bounds of probability that Pallamma would not have executed the Will in ...
Muthuswami Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.845
Wallace, J.1. These two appeals are from judgments in connected suits. The facts necessary for the disposal of those appeals are as follows: One Palani Goundan was the father of one Kavundai Goundan who is the -5th defendant in O.S. Nos. 559 of 1921. His sons are defendants Nos. 6 to 8. Fifth defendant sold certain family property under Ex. B to defendants Nos. 1-4, who, in their turn, sold it to the plaintiff under Ex. C. The sale covered 8 items. Plaintiff claimed that they were all the 5th defendant's properties at the time of the sale by him to defendants Nos. 1-4, that the 5th defendant had separated from his family and had got items Nos. 1-4 and 8 for his share and that as regards Nos. 5,6 and 7 they were his self-acquisition. The contest in the suits ranged round the question whether Palani Goundan was still joint with the 5th defendant and his sons, and whether items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the self-acquisitions of the5th defendant. The lower Appellate Court has decided that there...
Rajagopal Pillai Vs. P. Veeraperumal Pillai and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ232
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In this suit a very large amount is involved but otherwise this is a typical case. In form the suit is for partition of family property but in truth it is an attempt by a son with the aid of his father to recover for his family the properties alienated by the latter. The following pedigree explains the relationship of the parties: Veeraperumal Pillai | __________________________________________________ | | | Thiruvengadathau Doraisani Kajagopal Pillai Animal Pillai | | P. Appasami Pillai : | Nagathammal | ________________________________________________ | | | Muthusami Srinivasa P.M. Appa- Nagath- | sami Pillai ammal __________________________ | | P. Veeraperumal P. Sethuram Pillai (1st Deft.) Pillai. | Rajagopal Pillai (Plff.).2. The plaintiff Rajagopal Pillai is a minor who sues by his next friend. The 1st defendant, his father, became an insolvent and his estate is now represented by the 5th defendant the Official Assignee of Madras. No relief is sought agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »