Chennai Court August 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.
Muppidathi Ammal Vs. Muthuswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad126
Curgenven, J.1. The first question in this second appeal is as to the meaning to be attached to the word ' Santhathi ' as used in the compromise Ex. D; whether it includes an adopted as well as a natural born son. There is perhaps a significant difference between the phrasing of Ex. C embodying the provision made by Nainar Pillai in favour of his daughter Piramu Ammal born after the adoption of his son, and Ex D, the compromise now in question, for, in the former, the words used are:if issue (santhathi) are not born to (or forthcoming from) you,which seems clearly to exclude an adopted son, while in the latter the expression is:if the defendant has no issue (santhathi).2. The phrase appears to me to be fully compatible with the view that both a natural and an adopted son was contemplated, for there is no doubt that in ordinary Hindu usage expressions signifying ' offspring,' 'progeny',' issue ', though in English they are ordinarily restricted to natural children, include children adop...
In Re: Ellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ810
ORDERJackson, J.1. The three petitioners have each been fined Rs. 5 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Saidapet (confirming on appeal the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate, Poonamalee), under Sections 175 and 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920, for selling fish in an unlicensed private market.2. Admittedly the petitioners were owners of a private market before the commencement of the Act. That being so they were entitled to the grant of a license subject only to such conditions as regards sanitation etc., as the Union (S. 188) might impose. That is the clear meaning of Section 171(3):The Board shall grant the license applied for subject only to such regulations' etc.and it is difficult to see how anything else could have been enacted. A private market is a private property and an Act to consolidate the law relating to local boards could hardly be an Act of confiscation. At the same time it is clearly within the Board's competence to see that such property is enjoyed without de...
Sethumadhava Ayyar Vs. Bacha Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad778
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the present appellant as plaintiff for redemption of a mortgage of the suit property which, according to the plaintiff, was made by two instruments marked as Exs. A and B in this case. Both the lower Courts have held against the contention of the plaintiff, and, holding that the agreement constituted merely a sale and an agreement to re-sell, and finding that the term limited by Ex. B for re-purchase of the property had long ago expired, dismissed the plaintiff's action.2. On appeal here it has been strenuously contended by Mr. Seetharama Rao that, on a proper construction of Exs. A and B with a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the proper conclusion to arrive at is that together they constituted but a mortgage by conditional sale and that the lower Courts were wrong in construing them in the manner they have construed. It must be said that there are many features in these instruments...
Narayana Doss Balakrishna Doss Vs. Buchraj Chordia Sowcar and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ842
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit impeaches a mortgage executed by him. The 2nd defendant Purushothamdas is his maternal uncle and he became indebted to the 1st defendant, a money lender, in a large sum of money. When Purushothamdas was pressed for repayment, the plaintiff executed a' mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant securing his share in his family property and making himself liable for his uncle's debt. The transaction is challenged by the plaintiff on the ground that it is vitiated by undue influence. The short point to be decided in the case is : is it so vitiated? I may however point out that a mass of evidence has been adduced to show, or to rebut, that other invalidating grounds existed, namely, (1) that in the deed finally executed, the term that the amount is repayable on demand was fraudulently inserted, contrary to the original understanding that it was repayable only after two years; (2) that the 1st defendant falsely denied the existence of certain j...
Balam Nookamma and anr. Vs. Sadireddi Dharmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad233; (1927)53MLJ863
1. There are no grounds for interfering in second appeal with the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court. The only point for consideration is as to the admissibility of the oral arrangement providing for repayment of the mortgage debt from the usufruct of the land. The contention, that this amounted to a lease, is clearly untenable, nor did it constitute a usufructuary mortgage, but only a means of discharging the debt by putting the simple mortgagee in possession of the property: see Ram Baksh v. Durjan [1887] 9 All. 392 and Kamala Sahi v. Nundan Mian [1911] 11 CRI.L.J. 39. As such even an oral agreement may be proved. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Vankayala Subbarayudu Vs. Kolluri Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1074; 110Ind.Cas.136; (1928)55MLJ314
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The only point raised and argued in this Second Appeal is one of some difficulty, but after carefully considering the point and the arguments advanced by the learned gentlemen on both sides I have come to the conclusion ultimately without any hesitation that the appeal should be dismissed.2. The 4th defendant is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff instituted the action from which this appeal has arisen as mortgagee for an ordinary mortgage decree. Defendants 1 to 3 did not defend the suit and allowed the case to proceed ex parte. The defence that was set up by the 4th defendant was that Item No. 3 in the plaint, with which alone we are concerned in this Second Appeal, was part of an estate governed by the Estates Land Act and that for the arrears of rent due in respect thereof the landholder had obtained a decree in a Revenue Court, had it transferred to a Civil Court and brought the holding for sale and that he (the 4th defendant) became the purchaser. ...
(Possari) Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Appavu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1139
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The respondents vakil reports that he has no instructions in this second appeal. We have heard all that., Mr. Seetharama Rao has had to say on behalf of the appellant. It is found as a fact that plaintiff 1 has failed to establish that he was the hereditary pujari of this temple and entitled to such office. Now the learned vakil for the appellant has invited us to grant 'an injunction against the defendants on the ground that plaintiff 1 being found to be in possession of the office such possession may be protected by an injunction issued against persons who have no right to interfere with the enjoyment of the office. For this purpose he has referred to some cases relating to immovable property. No doubt in certain cases, where the right of title to immovable property was claimed and what was proved was mere possession of property but it was also found that the defendant was merely a trespasser, it was held that in the absence of any other proof possession may ...
Possari Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Appavu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.411
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.The respondents' Vakil reports that he has no instructions in this second appeal. We have heard all that Mr. Seetharama Eao has had to say on behalf of the appellant. It is found as a fact that the 1st plaintiff has failed to establish that he was the hereditary pujari of this temple and sntitled to such office. Now the learned Vakil for the appellant has invited us to grant an injunction against the defendants on the ground that the 1st plaintiff being found to be in possession of the office, such possession may be protected by an injunction issued against persons who have no right to interfere with the enjoyment of the office. For this purpose he has referred to some cases relating to immoveable property. No doubt in certain eases, where the right of title to immoveable property was claimed and what was proved was mere possession of property but it was also found that the defendant was merely a trespasser, it was held that in the absence of any other proof posse...
Ramappa Naidu and anr. Vs. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ272
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of East Tanjore under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act declaring that the properties forming the subject matter of this appeal would vest in the Official Receiver for the benefit of the creditors.2. The dispute relates to about 68 acres and odd of property which belonged to one Chinnaswami Naidu. He died leaving a will in favour of his son in which, generally speaking--' we will refer to the contents of the will in detail later--he called upon his son to maintain a choultry and-carry on in it the worship of their family deity, meeting the expenses from the income of the property, with liberty- to utilize the balance of the income for family purposes. His son became an insolvent. The children of the insolvent, the appellants before us, maintain that these properties are trust properties, while the Official Receiver and the creditors contend that the properties belonged to the insolvent with a c...
K. Chenchuvenkatanagiah Chetti and Co. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad125
1. The only question that has been tried in this suit is whether defendant 2 was a partner in the firm of B.P. Sreeramulu Chetty & Co., a firm with which the plaintiffs had dealings. Three persons were made defendants with an allegation that they were the partners of B.P. Sreeramulu Chetti & Co. Defendants 1 and 3 admitted partnership and also their liability, but defendant 2 contended that he was not a partner in the firm. At the trial it has been found that defendant 2 was a partner till 31st March 1921 and the respondent (defendant 2) does not appear to impeach that finding here. The plaint transactions took place in June 1921. The plaintiffs (appellants) now contend that, although defendant 2 may not have been a partner of the defendant's firm in June 1921, yet inasmuch as he was a partner in that firm up to 31st March and no notice was given either to the customers or to the general public of the dissolution of partnership, defendant 1 is liable under Section 264, Contract Act, fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »