Chennai Court September 1927 Judgments
Lanka Sanyasi Vs. Lanka Yerran Naidu (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ374
1. This second appeal has arisen from a suit which was instituted by two plaintiffs for a declaration that a decree passed against them in O.S. No. 461 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Parvathipur was not binding on them and also for possession of the property which under that decree appears to have been obtained by the 1st defendant in this litigation who was the decree-holder in the previous suit. In the District Munsif's Court the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, but in the Lower Appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge having' arrived at the finding that the 1st plaintiff at least was a major on the date of the compromise on which the decree was passed held that the decree was not binding on both the plaintiffs and therefore granted a decree in favour of both the plaintiffs declaring that the previous decree was not binding on them and also for delivery of possession of the property. It has been argued by the learned vakil for the appellant before us that, ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishnamachariar Vs. Chellammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad561
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. The finding of the lower Court which has been especially attacked in this appeal is a finding that the defendant (appellant) mingled his earnings as a vakil with the income from the admitted joint family property and thereby must be deemed to have thrown his self-acquisition into the common fund. Admittedly there was an income of at least Rs. 280 from the joint family property and this came into the defendant's hands on the death of his brother who was the husband of plaintiff 1. The main contention raised in appeal is that this income from the joint family property was insufficient for the mere maintenance of the defendant, his wife, his mother and four children and that therefore, he utilized other moneys to provide such maintenance and it is argued that there can be no inference from that fact that he intended to make these other moneys, or rather his self-acquisition, joint family property. This contention has been specifically negatived by the Privy Council ...
Tag this Judgment!Lanka Sanyasi Vs. Lanka Lakshman Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1927
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.294
1. This second appeal has arisen from a suit which was instituted by two plaintiffs for a declaration that a decree passed against them in Original Suit No. 461 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif 's Court at Parvathipur was not binding on them and also for possession of the property which under that decree appears to have been obtained by the first defendant in this litigation who was the decree-holder in the previous suit. In the District Munsif's Court the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, but in the lower Appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge, having arrived at the finding that the first plaintiff at least was a major on the date of the compromise on which the decree was passed, held that the decree was not binding on both the plaintiffs and, therefore, granted a decree in favour of both the plaintiffs declaring that the previous decree was not binding on them and also for delivery of possession of the property. It has been argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishnamachariar Vs. Chellamal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.641
William Watkins Phillips, Officiating, C.J.1. The finding of the lower Court which has been especially attacked in this appeal is a finding that the defendant (appellant) mingled his earnings as Vakil with the income from the admitted joint family property and thereby must be deemed to have thrown his self acquisition into the common fund. Admittedly there was an income of at least Rs. 280 from the joint family property and this came into the defendant's hands on the death of his brother who was the husband of the first plaintiff. The main contention raised in appeal is that this income from the joint family property was insufficient for the mere maintenance of the defendant, his Wife, his mother and four children and that, therefore, he utilised other monies to provide such maintenance and it is argued that there can be no inference from that fact that he intended to make these other monies, or rather his self acquisition joint family property. This contention has been specifically ne...
Tag this Judgment!Guntur Srirangam Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Vengu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.654
1. The short point for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment of the District Munsif on the ground that the Will of one Srirangam Tirumalai Aiyangar, the deceased husband, of the plaintiff respondent was invalid in law and inoperative to divest the widow of her right to succeed to her husband's estate on the ground of intestacy. It may be pointed out in limine that a great deal of the argument before us was directed to the question whether on a proper construction of the Will itself and the directions and dispositions therein contained what were the rights, if any, of the plaintiff.2. Our attention was somehow failed to be drawn by oversight to the fact that the cause of action set out in the plaint was merely for possession of the estate on the ground that the Will was not genuine and valid, and that, therefore, she was entitled to succeed to the estate practically on the basis of an intestacy and that no reliefs we...
Tag this Judgment!Maneckji Rustomji Vs. H.H. Wadia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ136
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to this appeal that no appeal lies because the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This question was considered by a Full Bench in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1910) M 1 : 21 MLJ 1 and it was there laid down that the test to be applied in deciding whether an order is or is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 is as follows:If its effect, whatever its form may be, and whatever may be the nature of the application on which it is made, is to put an end to the suit or proceeding so far as the Court before which the suit or proceeding is pending is concerned, or if its effect, if it is not complied with, is to put an end to the suit or proceeding, I think the adjudication is a judgment within the meaning of the clause.2. The present order is an order referring back a report of the Official Referee for further consideration and it is conte...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. V.M. Ratnavelu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ158
Wallace, J.1. This appeal has been posted before me owing to a difference of opinion between Jackson, J., and Madhavan Nair, J. It is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the Joint Magistrate of Tirupattur. The charge against him was illegal possession of petrol in excess of the quantity covered by his license to 'keep' petrol.2. The facts not disputed are that the accused holds a license for storage of 500 gallons of petrol and has a store for that quantity at Katpadi. He is the agent of the Burma Oil Company and, as their agent, also holds a transport license for transport of petrol without limit of quantity. On 28th November, 1925 evening he took delivery at the Katpadi railway station of 1000 gallons. He carried these to his premises, put 500 in store, disposed of another 100 before dark, and kept the remaining 400 in bandies on his premises over night with a view to transporting them in the morning to Vellore and Madanapalle for which places he had booke...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiyan Chetti Vs. Vayyadayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.412
1. This Letters Patent appeal is against the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in Second Appeal No. 1121 of 1923. The suit Was for redemption of the othis and the question that arose was whether the documents evidencing them Exs. C and D were genuine. The learned District Munsif supporting himself in part at least by the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, answered this question in the affirmative, but the first Appellate Court refused to draw the presumption and considered that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the documents. The learned Chief Justice accepted the second appeal on the ground that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was vitiated by the fact that the Judge had overlooked the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act and had proceeded in fact to throw upon the plaintiff a burden which properly rested on the defendant. We have examined the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge as carefully as possible, and with ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasa Ayyar and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal Alias Yogambal Ammal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.712; (1928)54MLJ530
Tiruvenkata Achariyar, J.1. These Appeals are preferred by the same appellants against the decrees passed in three connected suits which were instituted against them by the respondent in each of the appeals. The three suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, as the questions involved therein were substantially the same, vis., what provision the court should make for the maintenance of the plaintiff in each suit, as the widow of an undivided brother of the defendants, a question the decision of which rested on substantially the same facts in all the three cases.2. The material facts of the case are as follows: The appellants are the surviving sons of one Subbuswamy Ayyar who died in or about 1904 leaving considerable properties moveable and immoveable. They had two other brothers named Subramanya Ayyar and Ramachandra Ayyar ; all the four brothers formed a joint Hindu family who lived together and had a common mess...
Tag this Judgment!Davood Rowther and ors. Vs. Renuka Devi Amman Temple and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1188
1. This appeal must be allowed. The short question raised on behalf of the appellants is that the lower appellate Court, in deciding on the question of necessity for the grant of the permanent lease to the defendants by previous trustees, did not take into consideration the fact that the grant of the permanent lease found by the lower appellate Court was more than 60 or 70 years ago and that, therefore, there could not, reasonably speaking, be any material or evidence available directly to establish such justification or necessity for the grant of the permanent lease. The lower appellate Court has also failed in coming to a conclusion on the question to take into consideration the circumstance that successive dharmakarthas are shown by the receipts granted by them to have ratified the permanent lease and recognized the lessees as holders of a permanent lease. The learned vakil for the appellant has drawn our attention in this matter to the observations of their Lordships of the Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »