Chennai Court September 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.
Ganshamdoss Narayandoss Vs. Gulab Bi Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1054; (1927)53MLJ709
William Phillips, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to us is : Can a defendant resisting a claim made by the plaintiff as heir-at-law rely in defence on a will executed in his favour at Madras in respect of property situate in Madras when the will is not probated and no letters of administration with the will annexed have been granted?2. This question deals with the provisions of Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act, X of 1865, which is to the effect that no right as legatee can be proved by a will of which probate has not been taken. It has been held by this Court in Caralapathi Chunna Cunniah v. Cota Nannnalwariah ILR (1909) M 91 that this objecttion to proving by an unprobated will applies only to a plaintiff and it was held 'that a defendant is not precluded by that section from relying upon a will as he is not seeking to establish a right as executor or legatee.' Janaki v. Dhanu Lall ILR (1891) M 454 was cited as authority for that proposition. On a reference to Jan...
R.A. Arunachala Ayyar Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad107
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of our brother Waller, J., sitting on the original side on a notice of motion taken up by the appellant in connexion with an arbitration under the Indian-Arbitration Act 9 of 1899.2. It will now be convenient to set forth the history of the transactions giving rise to the arbitration and the further proceedings in Court. There was a firm of merchants known as R. K. Rajagopala. Ayyar and Brothers consisting of R. K Rajagopala Ayyar and his cousin (not strictly brother) R. A. Arunachala Ayyar. When exactly the partnership was formed is not clear. A firm of French merchants known as Louis Dreyfus & Co. who are the respondents before us, having their head office at Karachi in Sindh (Bombay Presidency) have a branch at Madras managed through their agent Mr. Hart-man. In 1918 Rajagopala Ayyar happened to go to Northern India on pilgrimage and he visited the Head Office of Messrs. Dreyfus & Co., and there entered into a Dubash agreement dated 25th...
Etathil Chandu Kutti Vs. Viayathen Mahadevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad534; 110Ind.Cas.738; (1928)55MLJ450
Jackson, J.1. Second appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Calicut, in A.S. No. 81 of 1923, from O.S. No. 581 of 1920, Additional District Munsif, Calicut.2. The appellant is a sub-lessee in Malabar holding under a kanomdar. The first respondent, plaintiff, has sued to redeem' the kanom, and has obtained a decree. Appellant and the kanomdar are disputing as to who is entitled to the compensation for the improvements which admittedly exist. The District Munsif ordered that the amount in dispute between defendants 1 to 8 and 12 will be paid by plaintiff and kept in Court deposit to be paid out to whoever establishes his title. The Subordinate Judge finds that this direction is obviously right. The plaintiff has accordingly paid the amount in Court. The 12th defendant appeals on the ground that under Madras Act I of 1900 he cannot be ejected from possession until the compensation for his improvements has been ascertained and paid to his credit. The plaintiff contends that, so...
Senapathi Narayana Patrudu and ors. Vs. the Manager of Peda Marangi Es ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ564
Wallace, J.1. These are two appeals under the Madras Estates Land Act. The suits were filed under Section 77 of the Act by the plaintiff-landlord against the defendants for arrears of rent. One of the suits is filed for the arrears of faslies 1325 to 1327 and the other for faslies 1328 to 1330.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are that plaintiff granted melwaram of the suit land, which is admitted to have been ryoti land, as inam to the defendants' predecessors in lieu of service. In fasli 1325 (December, 1914) the plaintiff resumed the inam. There was some litigation about the matter of this resumption, but the Civil Court eventually on 27th February, 1918, upheld it. The plaintiff now sues for arrears of rent on the land from the date of resumption. The lower appellate Court fixed the annual rent at Rs. 600 and has decreed that sum for the suit faslies with interest, and the defendants appeal. They do not dispute that they are bound to pay rent. They argue that, sinc...
Venkataramani Iyer Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad945; 108Ind.Cas.639
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit from which this second appeal has arisen is the appellant here. His suit was primarily to have it declared that the decree passed against him in O.S. 26 of 1905 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, is not binding on him. The grounds on which such a declaration has been asked for, so far as one is able to gather the same from the plaint, are that he was the minor defendant 12 in that suit and that even though his father Krishnaswamier was appointed guardian ad litem in the suit he colluded with the plaintiffs in the action allowing a decree ex parte to result against him. The reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff on the basis of the declaration above referred to have reference to two sets of properties, one in Schedule A and the other in Schedule B. The primary relief is only in respect of properties described in Sch A. The relief in respect of properties in Schedule B is only prayed for in the alternative. The Court of first...
(Dwarampoodi) Venkamma Vs. Goparaju Perraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad991
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Narsapur remanding O.S. No. 11 of 1921 to the file of the District Munsif of Tanuku for the admission of additional evidence. The course which the litigation took has been reviewed in his order. There was a question whether the plaintiff had secured a division and delivery of the half share in the lands which he obtained under the compromise decree in the suit of 1900. Upon that question a delivery receipt was tendered in evidence before the District Munsif and by him rejected on the ground that it was a document compulsorily registrable. The learned Subordinate Judge, differing from this view, held that the document was admissible and remanded the case for the admission not only of this document, but of some other documents for the plaintiff and also for the contesting fourth defendant. A question is raised whether this order is appealable as having been passed under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C., a...
Devorampoodi Venkamma Vs. Goparaju Perraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.1
Curgenven, J.1. This is, an appeal from an order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Narsapur remanding O.S. No. 11 of 1921 to the file of the District Munsif of Tanuku for the admission of additional evidence. The course which, the litigation took has been reviewed in. his order. There was a question whether the plaintiff had secured a division and delivery of the half share in the lands which he obtained under the compromise decree in the suit of 1900.2. Upon that question a delivery receipt was tendered in evidence before the District Munsif 'and by him rejected on the ground that it was a document compulsorily registrable. The learned Subordinate Judge, differing from this view, held that the document was admissible and remanded the case for the admission not only of this document, but of some other documents for the plaintiff and also for the contesting, 4th defendant. A question is raised whether this order is appealable as having been passed under Order XLI, Rule 23, o...
Ramakrishna Reddiar Vs. Kasivasi Chidambara Swamigal (Died) and Three ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.282; (1928)54MLJ412
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Devadoss in S. A. No. 51 of 1922. The point for decision is whether a guardian of a Hindu minor can bind his ward by a personal covenant for sale of the minor's estate so that specific performance of the contract may be decreed against the minor. The learned Judge held on the authority of a Full Bench ruling in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan ILR (1918) M 185 : 1918 36 MLJ 29 that the minor can be bound. Before us it has been argued that that Full Bench ruling does not go so far as the learned Judge takes it, and I am of opinion that this contention is well-founded.2. It may be taken for purposes of argument in this case that the proposed sale was for necessary purposes. The same was the case in the Full Bench ruling. The question referred to the Full Bench was 'whether any decree, and if so, what decree can be passed against a minor or his estate on a covenant entered into on his behalf by a guardian for his benefit under ...
Srirama Raghvachariar Vs. Narasama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.92
1. The circumstances in which this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises are briefly as follows: The respondent sued the appellant upon a simple mortgage and the parties compromised, embodying the terms in a decree dated the 3rd March, 1911. After this, a final decree was passed on 25th September, 1914, and there were three successive execution petitions, in 16, 17 and 20 respectively. The fourth execution petition, that with which we are concerned, was filed on 21st June, 1923, asking for the sale of the hypothecated property. An order for sale was accordingly passed by the District Munsif on 15th December, 1928, fixing the sale on 5th February, 1924. Shortly before that day arrived, the appellant (1st defendant) filed a petition under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code asking the Court to re-consider its order for sale. This petition was dismissed by the District Munsif and an appeal to the Subordinate Judge was equally unsuccessful. Against the latter order this appeal has been fil...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohideen Sahib of Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ719
William Phillips, Officiating C.J.1. The question referred is, 'whether a body of individuals who have agreed to take in auction, work and share the profits from four toddy shops can be taxed under Section 3 of the Income-tax Act on the combined profits of the four shops'.2. The Income-tax Commissioner finds that there was a body of seven persons who formed a sort of partnership. Of these' seven persons, four bid and obtained leases of four toddy shops, and the profits from those four toddy shops were shared between ' the seven persons; apparently also all the seven assisted in the working and financing of those shops. On this finding he holds that this association of persons was not an illegal association under the Abkari Rules. Here the petitioner's vakil questions that finding and contends that his client and others have offended against the law in that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 27 of the general conditions of those licenses, vis., ''No privilege of supply or vend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »