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.
Gadamsetty Nammalwar Chetti and anr. Vs. Gadamsetty Perundevi Thayaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1031; (1927)53MLJ802
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff-respondent sue to recover certain jewels which, she alleges, are her striahanam. Her husband was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 12,300 into Court by the 7th April, 1924. The order was passed on the 24th March. The payment was to be made in a suit in which the present appellants were the plaintiffs. After the date fixed for payment it appears that the plaintiff's husband arranged to sell the jewels now claimed by the plaintiff to the appellants in part satisfaction of the claim of Rs. 12,300 under the order. In accordance with the arrangement the plaintiff's husband put in an application to the Court to sanction this arrangement as there was a minor concerned and the arrangement amounted to a compromise between the parties in respect of this claim of Rs. 12,300. The appellants signified their agreement to this application when it was put into Court. The application was for leave to be granted to the 1st plaintiff to recei...
A. Narayanan Nambudiri, Karnavan and Manager of Ettasseri Munnot Manga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ824
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The question that has been referred for our opinion is:Is the decision in Marivittil Mathu Amma v. Pathram Kunnot Cherukot ILR (1906) M 215 : 1906 17 MLJ 377 correct?2. In that decision it was held that, where a decree is passed against the karnavan of a tarwad in his representative capacity, all the members of the tarwad must be held to be parties to the suit and such members in execution proceedings must proceed under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under Section 278. The decree had been passed against the tarwad, but certain members of the tarwad objected to the attachment of certain properties on the ground that they belonged not to the tarwad but to a separate tavazhi to which the claimants belonged. In order to consider the validity of this decision, it is necessary to consider the decision in Kamal Kutti v. Ibrayi ILR (1901) M 658 which was relied on as authority for it. In Kamal Kutti v. Ibrayi ILR (1901) M 658, the d...
A. Narayanan Nambudri Vs. Puthisseri theva Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1043
ORDERDevadoss, J. 1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether an appeal lay to the lower appellate Court from the order of the District Munsif on a petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58, and Section 47, Civil P. C. A decree was obtained in O. S. No. 345 of 1912 by one Narayanan Nambudri against Krishnan Nair and his brother Ramunni Nair for Rs. 344. Krishnan Nair was made liable as karnavan of the tarwad in addition to his personal liability. In execution of that decree certain moveables belonging to the tarwad were attached. The junior members objected to the attachment on the ground that the tarwad was not bound by the decree. They failed in their petition and 22 junior members brought O. S. No. 38 of 1920 to set aside the decree so far as the tarwad was concerned and they succeeded in the suit with the result that Krishnan Nair and Ramunni Nair were made personally liable for the decree amount. The decree-holder attached some of the properties of the tavazhi and t...
Tadinada Abdul Kharim Saheb Vs. Pulavarti Lakshmanaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad440
Wallace, J.1. The question for disposal in this appeal is whether the execution petition dated 14th April 1923, was in accordance with law. When it was presented to the executing Court, the Court acting under Order 21, Rule 17(1) returned it for amendment, as various particulars required by Rule 11 had not been furnished. The petition was not returned amended within the time given, and when it was re-presented after the expiry of the time it was rejected as out of time. The lower Courts have held that, even though it was so rejected, nevertheless it was a petition in accordance with law, because the particulars which were omitted were not material such as would justify the executing Court in holding that the petition was not in accordance with law. The appellant contends that such a view is in direct contradiction of Sub-rule 2, Rule 17. He contends that the sub-rule must mean that, when the petition is returned, for want of particulars under R.11, and is not returned or is rejected as...
Kinattinkara Madhavan Nair and anr. Vs. M.R. Ry. Manavikrama ZamorIn M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad906
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The defendants in the suit from which this second appeal has arisen are appellants before us. The suit was instituted as an ordinary suit for an account of the management of certain properties belonging to the Zamorin's estate by defendant as. agent.2. The first question that has been argued by the learned vakil for the appellants was that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by the law of limitation. The argument with regard to both in the Court of first instance' and in the appellate Court appears to have proceeded entirely on the question which was the appropriate article to be applied to the facts of this case, the defendants contending that the Article applicable was 90 and not 89. Article 90 was invoked because according to the third column of that article time would begin to run from the date on which the neglect or misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff, the allegation in this case being that the mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›