Chennai Court January 1928 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.
In Re: A.N.B. Balusawmy Iyer and A.N.B. Narasimha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.541
William Watkin Phillips, J.1. This appeal was argued on the assumption that the decision in Ramachandra Jagannatha Rao v. Viswesam : AIR1924Mad682 was correct, bat when arguments were completed, judgment was reserved until like decision of the Full Bands, to which the question of the correctness of the above ruling had been referred, was available. That decision, which wan in Subramania Ayyar v. Sabapathi Ayyar : AIR1928Mad657 has now confirmed Ramachandra Jagannatha Rao v. Viswasam : AIR1924Mad682 and, therefore, the original arguments hold good.2. In this case, the insolvent was adjudicated on 2nd December, 1919, and a partition deed executed on 2'dtli November, 1919, has been held to be void as against the Official Assignee. On 1st April, 1920, the Official Assignee took out a notice of motion asking that the partition dead should be declared void and for an order that the interest of the minor sons in the family property should be vested in the Official Assignee. This motion formed...
Athiappa Narayana Reddy Vs. Audilakshmi Ammal (Late a Minor) Declared ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ102
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent (who was the plaintiff acting by her father and next friend) under Section 77 of the Registration Act to direct registration of a document purporting to be a will executed by the husband of the minor plaintiff. The Sub-Registrar to whom the document was presented for registration refused to register it on the ground that execution was not proved and his decision was confirmed by the District Registrar on appeal. A suit was filed by the plaintiff by her father as next friend to compel registration. The defendants were the members of the undivided family consisting of themselves and the deceased Guruswami Reddi, husband of the minor plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that execution of the document was proved and directed registration. Hence this appeal.2. The document presented for registration purports to be a will executed by Guruswami Reddi, husband of the minor plaintiff. The minor plai...
Yellamaraju Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Goteti Vigneswaradu (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad840; 110Ind.Cas.554; (1929)56MLJ52
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the lands claimed in the plaint and mesne profits. The case for the plaintiff is that he purchased the lands on the 20th of July, 1913 for Rs. 40,000, that, out of this sum, Rs. 12,000 was paid to discharge a debt due by his vendor and the balance of Rs. 28,000 was applied towards setting aside a sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 500 of 1912 against the 1st defendant, that the amount was deposited in Court on the 21st of July, 1913 and the sale was set aside under the orders of the Court on the 19th of August, 1913, that, after the setting aside of the sale, the 1st defendant who had obtained another decree against the plaintiff's vendor attached the property in execution of his decree in O.S. No. 1075 of 1912, that a claim was preferred by the plaintiff which was dismissed on the 12th of January, 1914 and that on the dismissal of the claim the 1st defendant purchase...
M.K. Sowbagiammal and anr. Vs. Komalangi Ammal by Guardian Kandaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ382
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that has been raised i regard to be a settled point--settled alike by weighty decisions and unbroken practice of the Court. But of late, I have found a tendency at the bar to raise this point, as if it is a debatable one and requires serious notice. I am delivering this considered judgment, to once for all state definitely what my view is and I am tempted to follow this course in this case on account of the lengthy argument addressed to me.2. One Mangadi Ellappa Chetti died leaveing assets valued by the petitioners at about 10 lakhs. He is said to have left a will and this is an application for probate of that will. The following pedigree serves to explain the facts of the case. ______________________________________________________ | | Mangadi Ellappa Chetti-testator Subbaroya Died July 1927 (left no widow) | | |Kanniappa Chetti (Died 1922) M.S. Chengalroya ChettiM. Sowbagiamma. Executiix & (2nd Caveator) 1st petitioner. | ______________________...
Lingama Naidu Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.511
This is an appeal Bgainst the order of the District Judge confirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge setting aside an alienation in favour of the appellant. The District Judge did not go into the meritB but confined himself to the question whether the non-filing of a regular suit by the appellant prevented him from establishing his title to the property as against the Official Receiver.The facts are shortly these. The appellant claims under a sale-deed dated the 7th February, 1923. In execution of a decree against his vendor the property was attached. A claim petition was put in by the appellant. When objection was taken upt the appellant applied to withdraw the claim petition saying that he would file a regular suit. The District Munsif without going into the merits of the claim on this application to withdraw dismissed the claim petition on the 9th July, 1923. The attachment was an attachment before judgment. About 3 months after this withdrawal the defendant filed an applicati...
Subraya Pai Vs. Subramania Pattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad648
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of South Kanara dismissing the appeal by the petitioner for setting aside a sale. The first point raised by Mr. Sitarama Rao, for the petitioner, is that the amount due under Ex. A was secured by a kanom deed and it was not a debt which could be attached and sold under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C., as the kanom deed was a usufructuary mortgage-deed without covenant to pay the amount Both the lower Courts have held that there was a debt due under Ex. A and that could be attached under Order 21, Rule 46, Clause (1).2. The point is whether Ex. A contains a covenant by the mortgagor to pay the amount to the mortgagee. If there is no -covenant to pay, the mortgagee cannot have the right to sue for the money secured under Ex. A and cannot in default of payment bring the property to sale. The relevant portion of the document is as follows:You shall be in exclusive possession and pay to our tarwad the settlement a...
Chinnaswami Servai and ors. Vs. Venkatasubba Vathiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad681
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. This second appeal has arisen from a revenue suit which was filed in the Special Deputy Collector's Court of Ramnad at Manamadura. It has been previously presented to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad as a small cause suit, but was returned by the Small Cause Judge to be presented to the original side in the District Munsif's Court and thereupon it was presented to the District Munsif's Court of Manamadura and was returned by him in turn to be presented to a revenue Court on the ground that the claim related to rent due in respect of an estate. On the face of the plaint it is perfectly clear that the plaintiff landholder set up that only defendants 1 to 3 were the ryots of the land and, therefore, liable to him for rent. In para. 7 of the plaint this is what the plaintiff has stated:Though the kudivaram in the suit land belongs only to defendants 1 to 3 all the defendants in this suit have joined together, ploughed this land and done cultivation, etc., an...
Eranhikal Talappil Moosa Kutty Vs. Kozhikote Puthia Kovilakath thekke
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad687; 110Ind.Cas.398
1. The contention of the appellant is that no notice was given to the appellant terminating the tenancy. It is contended for the respondent that the terms of the tenancy were such that no notice to quit was necessary as a condition precedent for bringing a suit in ejectment. Two documents, Exs. 2 and 3, have been filed in the case. They appear to be receipts granted by the respondent to the appellant for rent for the year M.E. 1097. But it is not quite clear whether the rent paid was for the whole of 1907. If the respondent had received rent for the whole of the year 1097, he was not entitled to bring a suit in ejectment before the close of the year. In order to dispose of the case satisfactorily it is necessary that there should be finding on the questionwhether Exs. 2 and 8 were granted by the Kovilakam of defendant 2 (respondent) herein, for the rent for the whole of the year 1097.2. The District Judge will record a finding on the issue and submit the same within one month after the...
Chinnasami Servai and ors. Vs. Venkatasubba Vathiyar Alias Pichu Vathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.247
This second appeal has arisen from a revenue suit which was filed in the Special Deputy Collector's Court of Ramnad at Manamadura. It has been previously presented to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad as a Small Cause suit, but was returned by the Small Cause Judge to be presented to the Original Side in the District Munsif's Court and thereupon it was presented to the District Munsif's Court of Manamadura and was returned by him in turn to be presented to a Revenue Court on the ground that the claim related to rent due in respect of an estate. On the face of the plaint it is perfectly clear that the plaintiff landholder set up that only defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the ryots of the land and, therefore, liable to him for rent. In para. 7 of the plaint this is what the plaintiff has stated. 'Though the kudivaram in the suit land belongs only to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 all the defendants in this suit have joined together, ploughed this land and done Cultivation etc., and are enjoying...
Somayajulu Vs. Mahammad Azam Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.528
A suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff applied for its restoration. The District Munsif ordered, that the suit would be restored if the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10 to the defendants irrespective of the results of the suit. The plaintiff's Vakil accordingly tendered Rs. 19 to defendant's Vakil and he accepted the amount, The question is whether, having banefited to this extent by the Court's order, he cai ioipxga that order in revision.It is quite clear that the petitioner will be out of Court unless he can show that he receivsd the Rs. 10 under compulsion. He relies upon Manilal Guzrati v. Harendra Lal Roy 8 Ind. Cas. 79 ; 12 C.L.J. 558 which lays down that the ordinary rule in Tinkler v. Hilder (1819) 4 Ex. 187 ; 7 D. and L. 61 ; 18 L.J. Ex. 429 ; 13 Jur. 664 ; 15 E.R. 1176 does not apply if 'the defendants had no ohoice in the matter.' In the present case it cannot be said that they had no choice. Their Vakil might hare said, 'I deny the validity of the order; I am taking...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »