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.
Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. V. Ry. Sethurama Madige Rao Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad382
1. This appeal is against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in A.S. 13 of 1926 remanding O.S. 238 of 1924 to the District Munsif, Tiruvadi, for disposal according te law.2. Defendant 4 is the appellant. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.' On 19th October 1917 they leased the properties in Schedule A to defendant 1 for seven years from 7th July 1918 on a rent of Rs. 600 per annum (see Ex. D) and also executed a mortgage to him for Rs. 1,525, hypothecating the Schedule B properties (see Ex. B, dated 21st November 1918). Ex. B contained the following recital:Unless credit entry is made herein in respect of payments of amounts which may be made on account of this bond, a statement (Plea) that they have been made otherwise is not sustainable.3. On the same date as Ex. B defendant executed a varthamanam (Ex. C) to the plaintiffs agreeing to pay Rs. 200 out of the rents for a certain charity, to pay also the ...
(Vedagiri) Seshacharlu Vs. (Ovveti) Venkata Subba Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad828
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The only point argued for the appellant in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint both to the Court of first instance and to the lower appellate Court should have been allowed and not rejected as it has been. The plaintiff-appellant originally instituted the suit from which the second appeal arises really claiming certain inam lands as inam appertaining to the office held by him in the suit temple as archaka and claiming what he referred to as the mesne profits of the property. It is clear from the record that, even at a very early stage in the litigation, he amended the plaint so as to include three alternative prayers. But there was no prayer by him in the plaint that, in the event of the Court holding that he had no right to the property or to the income thereof, he was, at any rate, entitled to be paid by the defendant reasonable wages for his having rendered archaka service in the suit temple. The first time that...
Vedagiri Seshacharlu Vs. Ovveti Venkata Subba Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.775
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.The only point argued for the appellant in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint both to the Court of first instance and to the lower Appellate Court should have been allowed and not rejected as it has been. The plaintiff-appellant originally instituted the suit from which the second appeal arises really claiming certain inam lands as inam appertaining to the office held by him in the suit temple as arshaka and claiming what he referred to as the mesne profits of the property. It is clear from the record that even at a very early stage in the litigation be amended the plaint so as to include three alternative prayers. But there was no prayer by him in the plaint that, in the event of the Court holding he had no right to the property or to the income thereof, he was at any rate entitled to be paid by the defendant reasonable wages for his having rendered arahaka service in the suit temple. The first time that he made suc...
K. Chenchuvenkatanagiah Chetty and Co. and ors. Vs. M. Padmanathan Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1927
Reported in: 106Ind.Cas.904
1. The only question that has been tried in this suit is whether the 2nd defendant was a partner in the firm of B.P. Sriramulu 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. Sriramulu Chetty & Co. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 admitted partnership and also their liability, but the 2nd defendant contended that he was not a partner in the firm. At the trial it has been found that the 2nd defendant was a partner till 31st March, 1921, and the respondent (2nd defendant) does not appear to impeach that finding here. The plaint transactions took place in June, 11321. The plaintiffs (appellants) now contend that, although the 2nd defendant 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 customers or to the general public of the dissolution of partnership, the 2nd defendant is liabl...
Dhanabakkiyammal Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad994; (1927)53MLJ644
1. This is an appeal against an order of our brother Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., dismissing an application under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, to remove the executor Thangavelu Mudaliar appointed under the will of Vaidyalinga Mudaliar, dated the 21st Oct., 1925. An interim order appointing a receiver was made by our brother Beasely, J. When the matter came on for final disposal before Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., he held that the matters which had to be determined required a considerable quantity of evidence and the determination of various facts and issues some of which were really complicated. He was also of opinion that the petitioner has got another remedy for the removal of the executor by way of a regular suit and that the object of this section was merely to provide a summary remedy for such removal in addition to that by suit. No evidence was taken by the learned Judge in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner. On the view he has taken he dismissed ...
Nagarathnammal and ors. Vs. Chinnu Sah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ861
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The plaintiffs have brought this suit to recover a share in the family property of themselves and the defendants. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the illegitimate sons of the deceased brother of the 3rd defendant; defendants 1 and 2 are sons of the deceased and the 4th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. The learned trial Judge has held that, sitting as a single Judge, he is bound by the decision in Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetty ILR (1903) M 32 and has held that the illegitimate sons, plaintiffs 2 and 3, are not entitled to any share in the family property of their deceased father as there are collaterals in existence. This point was expressly determined in Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachellam. Chetty (1890) LR 17 IA 128 : ILR 18 C 151, but it is now sought to be argued that that decision is wrong. Reliance is placed chiefly on a decision of the Privy Council reported in Jogendro Bhupati Hurrochundra Mahapatra v. Nityanand Man Sing (1890)...
Sharfuniya Begum Sahiba Vs. (Sayyad) Pacha Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad793
1. It is to be regretted that the respondents in this second appeal are not represented before us. For that reason it became clearly more necessary to examine carefully the judgments of both the lower Courts and the grounds on which they are based.2. The plaintiff is the appellant here. She is a Mahomedan married woman and she instituted this suit for a declaration that a certain transfer of property in her favour by her husband, defendant 1, was for consideration and that, therefore, she was the owner of the property and that the property was not liable to be attached at the instance of defendant 1's, creditors, who are also parties to this suit. She made a claim in execution proceedings which was disallowed and this is what is generally called a regular suit. We do not find that the defence to this action was that the sale, deed was merely nominal, or, in other words, was a sham and that, though there was an apparent transfer of the title, still the title itself continued with defend...
Kodali Tiruvengalaratnam Alias Tiruvengalam and anr. Vs. Kadali Butcha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.347; (1928)55MLJ757
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is of considerable difficulty and great interest in the Hindu Law of Adoption though it is not likely to arise frequently. It is no doubt in connection with the office of trusteeship of a temple claimed by the plaintiff jointly with the 1st defendant that the question has arisen, but the main point raised and discussed in appeal before us related to the validity of the adoption on which the plaintiff has based his right.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below found in favour of the adoption and upheld the plaintiff's claim and granted a decree. The defendants have appealed..3. Two points have now been argued on behalf of the appellants in this appeal and one of them is a comparatively small one and may be disposed of immediately.4. Ex. A is the will of the deceased Buchayya by which he gave authority to his two widows Pullamma and Lakshmamma to make an adoption. The portion of the will referr...
C. Munuswami Mudali Vs. Jawarmal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1180a
1. This suit is based on an equitable mortgage alleged to have been effected by defendant 1 in plaintiff's favour supported by a promissory note executed by defendant 1, her brother, defendant 2, and his wife, defendant 3. As regards the personal remedy against defendant 1, the plaintiff withdrew his case, and he also withdrew his case against defendant 3, who has no interest whatever in the mortgage property and apparently received no consideration in the transaction. The learned Judge has found, first of all, that defendant 1 did not take part in the transaction with plaintiff. Secondly he has found that defendant 1 has previously sold the property to her brother's father-in-law, defendant 4, but he has not dismissed the plaintiff's ease because he finds that the plaintiff discharged a mortgage executed by her prior to the sale to defendant 4, 'and is entitled to subrogation. Defendant 1's signature on the promissory note is admitted, as also her signature on Exs. D and D-1, two prom...
Karuppa Koundan and anr. Vs. Chinna Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1189
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The appellant's vakil in these second appeals at first made an offer to the other side, the plaintiffs in the two cases and widows of the deceased coparcener claiming maintenance against the surviving coparcener, that he had no objection to the two widows taking the entire half-share in all the family properties allotable to the share of their deceased husband. This offer was made having reference to the complaint made by defendant 3 that the maintenance awarded by the lower Court was excessive. At one time we were inclined not only to regard this offer as very fair and reasonable, but also the refusal of it by the other side as extremely unreasonable. But, as has been pointed out by the learned vakil for the respondent, it seems to be fairly clear that this so-called offer of the appellant is merely intended to be a trap into which the widows might be led opening up the door for further litigation and making it absolutely impossible for them to secure any main...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›