Chennai Court April 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.
C. Thiruvengada Mudaliar Vs. C. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad594; 108Ind.Cas.221
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application to enforce a compromise is a suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 7 make the application and it is resisted by the plaintiff The suit relates to a Hindu family consisting of three branches. The plaintiff is the sole representative of his branch; the 8th defendant represents another branch and the third branch is represented by the defendant 1 and sons, defendants 2 to 7. Defendant 8 allowed the suit to proceed ex parte and the compromise was only as between defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other.2. The terms were reduced to writing and engrossed in Tamil on a stamp paper. The arrangement is an extremely simple one. The first defendant and his sons agreed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8,000 in full settlement of his claim in the family properties. The deed says that the plaintiff was thereafter to have no concern with the properties of the family, with the outstandings due or the debts payable. Defendants 1 to 7 were to p...
Ramanatha Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T. K. Vijayaraghavalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad983
Wallace, J.1. Petitioner 2 seeks to have revised an order of the District Judge, Negapatam, setting aside a Court execution sale at which petitioner 2 was the Court auction-purchaser. The date of sale was 16th April 1926. On 7th April 1926 the judgment-debtor had presented an insolvency petition to the District Munsif of Negaptam. The District Munsif passed an order on that petition which has occasioned a good deal of confusion. He appointed the official receiver an interim receiver and directed that the property vest in him and then went on to say:summary administration has been ordered.2. Now, when summary administration has been ordered, the property of the debtor under Section 74 (ii) vests in the Court as a receiver on the date of admission of the insolvency petition. Hence the appointment of an interim receiver was not only superfluous, but also misleading. The property had already vested in the Court, 'as a receiver' and the Court, therefore, was the receiver. It is contended by...
T. Venkatasubba Rao Vs. B. Sivaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad946
1. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant to the present second appeal, are very simple. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Devabhumi village. His suit is for possession of the suit lands and for arrears of rent. He alleged that the lands formed the emoluments of a barber's service inam, that the Government resumed the inam in 1916, and granted him a patta and that when the defendant refused to pay the rent demanded of him he gave him a notice to quit and filed this suit. The defendant, amongst other things, contended that the suit lands did not form part of the barber's service inam and that the plaintiff had on no account any right to eject him. Various issues were raised in the case but the main issue was:Whether the plaintiff has the right to eject the defendant.2. The District Munsif found that the lands formed part of the barber's service inam and that the plaintiff proved his right to eject the defendant. His conclusion on the latter point was mainly based on the gro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›