Chennai Court November 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.
Nageswara Aiyar Alias Ramasami Aiyar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ197
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of Curgenven, J., ordering a stay of further proceedings in the suit on terms. The suit is a mortgage suit and a preliminary decree has been passed and an appeal against it preferred to this Court. Stay of further proceedings pending the hearing of the first appeal was asked for by the appellant and granted by the learned Judge on terms. Appellant Is the judgment-debtor under the decree and he objects to the terms imposed by the learned Judge as being too onerous and presents this Letters Patent Appeal on that ground.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent decree-holder that the appeal does not lie. We think the objection must be sustained. The interpretation of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which is given by the learned late Chief Justice Sir Arnold White in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar I.L.R. (1910) M. 1 : 1910 21 M.L.J. 1 has, in this Presidency at least, been followed so consistently that it has ...
Nageswara Ayyar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad197
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order of Curgenven, J. ordering a stay of further proceedings in the suit on terms The suit is a mortgage suit and a preliminary decree has been passed and an appeal against it preferred to this Court. Stay of further proceedings pending the hearing of the first appeal was asked for by the appellant and granted by the learned Judge on terms. Appellant is the judgment-debtor under the decree and he objects to the terms imposed by the learned Judge as being too onerous and presents this Letters Patent appeal on that ground.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent decree-holder that the appeal does not lie. We think the objection must be sustained. The interpretation of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which is given by the learned late Chief Justice Sir Arnold White, in Tularam Row v. Alagappa Chetti [1910] 35 Mad. 1 has in this Presidency at least, been followed so consistently that it has become for all practical p...
P.K. Nainar Rowthen Vs. Kuppai Pichai Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad609
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 3. The plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 1 in Penang. On this judgment he got a decree on 8th March 1911 in the District Court of Ramnad. In execution of this decree the plaint properties were attached. A claim was preferred by one Bathummal, guardian of defendant 2 Madhar who had inherited under a will dated 16th January 1909 properties of his paternal grandmother Sikkandar Bi Bi who derived title to those properties under a sale-deed executed in her favour by her husband, the father of defendant 1 Alla Pichai. The claim was allowed and the plaintiff filed O.S. 16 of 1916 in the Ramnad Court to set aside the claim order and to confirm the attachment at least so far as one half of the properties was concerned as the late Nabob's (the brother of Madhar) half share was inherited by his judgment-debtor, Nabob'3 father, defendant 1 herein Allapichai, and he got a decree. Now the trouble is caused by the fact that Allapichai who as sta...
Negeswara Iyer Alias Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. M.L.M. Ramanatham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.123
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of Curgenven, J., ordering a stay of further proceedings in the suit on terms. The suit is a mortgage suit and a preliminary decree has been passed and an appeal against it preferred to this Court. Stay of further proceedings pending the hearing of the first appeal was asked for by the appellant and granted by the learned Judge on terms. Appellant is the judgment-debtor under the decree and he objects to the terms imposed by the learned Judge as being too onerous and presents this Letters Patent Appeal on that ground.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent-decree-holder that the appeal does not lie. We think, the objection must be sustained. The interpretation of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which is given by the learned late Chief Justice Sir Arnold White in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M. 1 : (1910) M.W.N. 697 : 8 M.L.T. 453 : 21 M.L.J. 1 has, in this Presidency at least, been...
Thirukaval Chetti and ors. Vs. Karia Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad72
Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in A.S. No. 120 of 1925 on the file of this Court allowing an amendment of the plaint and remanding the suit to the lower Court for ascertaining the amount of compensation due to the plaintiffs from defendants 7 and 23 to 25. The facts which have led up to this order are as follows. The suit was for redemption of 16 items of property mortgaged usufructuarily by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had no title as regards items 1 to 12 of the mortgaged property and as regards the four remaining items that they had sold away the equity of redemption and had purchased it in the case of only one item 14, with which alone the appeal and the present petition are concerned. It was found that defendant 6 who had purchased this property from defendants 5 and 7 had acquired absolute title and tha...
B.M.S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ141
Reilly, J.1. In this case an Income-tax assessee made a return of his income when required to do so under Section 22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Not being satisfied with the return the Income-tax Officer required the assessee under Section 23 (2) of the Act to produce evidence in support of his return. The assessee produced some evidence; but the Income-tax Officer found it insufficient to show the amount of the assessee's income and then issued a notice to him under Section 22 (4) of the Act to produce complete accounts of a branch business at a place in the Federated Malay States for the account year in question. Those accounts the assessee did not produce, and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, proceeded to make his assessment under Section 23 (4) of the Act--that is an assessment not made upon evidence but 'to the best of his judgment,' an assessment from which under the Act the assessee had no right of appeal. The question referred to us is 'the applicant having made a...
R. Ratnasabapathy Chettiar and ors. Vs. V. Devasigamony Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad53; (1929)56MLJ10
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question referred to us for decision is the period of limitation applicable for the recovery of money due under a personal covenant contained in a registered deed of mortgage where the mortgage property has been sold and the claim is for the deficiency, whether the proper article to be applied is Article 66 or Article 67 as the case may be of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act or Article 116 of the same schedule.2. Article 66 applies to cases on a single bond where a day is specified for payment and the period of limitation is three years computed from the day so specified. Article 67 applies to cases on a single bond where no such day is specified, the period of limitation being three years computed from the date of the execution of the bond.3. A single or simple bond is a bond merely for the payment of a certain sum of money without any condition in or annexed to it (Halsbury, Vol. III, p. 80). In Dixon, Heynes v. Dixon (1900) 2 Ch.D. 561 the distin...
Madduri Venkata Someswara Rao Alias Venkata Subbanna, Minor by Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad213; (1929)56MLJ175
1. In this case the adoptive mother of a minor executed in 1918, though the exact date is not given, a promissory note purporting to act as his guardian and to execute it on his behalf. A suit was brought, O.S. No. 348 of 1921, on the promissory note and the plaintiff applied to have the adoptive mother appointed as the guardian-ad-litem of the minor, notwithstanding the fact that she was the executant of the promissory note; and she was so appointed. She raised no defence to the suit and an ex parte decree was passed; before the decree was passed the natural father had been put in as guardian of the minor and no steps were taken to inform the Court of the existence of the natural father as guardian. But no attempt appears to have been made to substitute him for the adoptive mother as guardian-ad-litem in the suit, and he was not so substituted. In these circumstances, the learned Judges propounded three questions for the opinion of a Full Bench.2. The first is this:Whether the appoint...
Rathinasabapathi Odayar Declared Major Vs. Gopala Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad545; 121Ind.Cas.126; (1929)56MLJ673
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff is the illegitimate son of one Venkataramana Odayar, a Sudra. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and the 3rd defendant the widow of Panchapakesa Odayar, the brother of Venkataramana Odayar. Defendants 4 and 5 are Venkataramana Odayar's widows. 2nd defendant has been adopted into a different family. Venkataramana Odayar was at the time of his death a member of a joint family consisting of himself and his brother, Panchapakesa Odayar. The plaintiff has brought this suit for a half share of the family property and in the alternative for suitable maintenance and other reliefs. The Lower Court negativing his claim to partition of the family properties has given a decree for maintenance with some minor reliefs. Defendants 1 and 3 have preferred this appeal and the plaintiff has preferred a memorandum of objections.2. As the main question in the appeal is as regards the plaintiff's right to partition of the suit property, we allowed Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri, who ...
Vemulapalli Ramakotayya Vs. Gutha Viraraghavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ755
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The facts necessary for the determination of this reference are briefly these:Vemulapalli Subbayya died in 1909, leaving a widow Seethamma, the 1st defendant and his mother Bapamma, the 3rd defendant surviving him. On the 2nd of October, 1918, Seethamma executed a deed of gift in respect of some of the properties that came to her from her husband in favour of her own brother Veeraraghavayya who is impleaded as the 2nd defendant in this case. The gift was effected by means of a document which is filed as Exhibit I in the case, and on the 19th of October the plaintiff executed a document filed as Exhibit II which in effect is a complete relinquishment of all of his rights as prospective reversioner and also purports to give full consent to the transaction evidenced by Exhibit I, to which document indeed he was an attesting witness. The question is whether by reason of his action in these matters he is to be held to be precluded from challenging the tran...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »