Chennai Court April 1928 Judgments
Kesarimal Vs. Gundabathula Suryanarayanmurthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1022; 114Ind.Cas.820
Thiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This case raises a question of some importance as regards the exercise by a pledgee of his right to sell the pledge for realizing the debt secured by the pledge. The material facts of the case are as follows:2. The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff on 8th October 1922 Rs. 765 stipulating to pay interest therefor at a certain rate per mensem and the debt was secured by two gold ornaments weighing 36-1/8 tolas. In March 1924 the plaintiff sent a formal notice to the defendant informing him that unless the amount due to him was repaid on or before the 30th of that month he would sell the pledge. The defendant replied to that letter by Ex. B, dated 30th March 1924, and on the same day he also paid Rs. 100 to the plaintiff towards interest. In Ex. B the defendant wrote as follows:I shall pay the balance of principal and interest by 30th April 1924 or pay the interest and write and give you a fresh paddu. If I fail to do so you may sell the articles (jewels) at ...
Tag this Judgment!Gori Bibi Vs. Sarasamed Meer Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad635
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This was a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., for framing a scheme for the management of a certain Mahomedan Durgha which is said to have been founded as long ago as 1742 by the then Nawab of Chicacole. The defendants are distant decsendants of Jaina Bibi who got possession of the property about 65 years before the institution of the suit. Defendant 2 is said to be a sister's daughter of Jaina Bibi and the exact relationship of defendant 1 who is also a lady is somewhat obscure. The written statement of defendant 2 sets out that after the death of Jaina Bibi her sister and heir Kulsam Bibi succeeded 'to the management of the Durgha as mutawalli and that on her death Kulsan Bibi appointed the husband of defendant 2 one Abdul Gaffar Sahib as her successor in the Mutawalliship : see Ex. 11. The written statement proceeds to set out that this person is now in possession and management of the Durgha and that he is a necessary party to the suit. Certain issues were framed a...
Tag this Judgment!Geri Bibi Vs. Sarasamed Meer Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.644
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This was a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, for framing a scheme for the management of a certain Muhammadan Dargah which is said to have been founded as long ago as 1742 by the then Nawab of Chicacole. The defendants are distant descendants of Jaina Bibi who got possession of the property about 65 years before the institution of the suit. The 2nd defendant is said to be a sister's daughter of Jaina Bibi and the exact relationship of the 1st defendant who is also a lady is somewhat obscure. The written statement of the 2nd defendant sets out that after the death of Jaina Bibi her sister and heir, Kulsam Bibi, succeeded to the management of the Dargah as mutawalli and that on her death Kuleam Bibi appointed the husband of the 2nd. defendant, one Abdul Gaffar Sahib, as her successor in the mutawallsship. See Ex. II. The written statement proceeds to set out that this person is now in possession and management of the Dargah and that he is a necessary party to ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbammal Vs. Kandasamy Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad978; 113Ind.Cas.310
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the District Munsif of Palamcottah in O.S. No. 62 of 1927 making the respondent a party to the suit. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner. She sued defendants 1 to 4, 5 and 6 on a mortgage bond executed by defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 5 and 6 had purchased some items of the property and had agreed to pay up a portion of the mortgage amount. The respondent intervened by filing a petition in which he stated that he was the adopted son of the plaintiff's husband and that the mortgage deed sued on really belonged to him and that the plaintiff was only a name-lender. On these facts he requested that he should be made a party to the suit. The learned District Munsif, stating that the truth of the allegations could be gone into at the trial of the suit, made him a party and in framing the issues raised the question of the respondent's adoption as a point for decision.2. It is argued that in the circumstances of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Mahaboob HussaIn Sahib Vs. Mir SurajuddIn Sahib Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1148
Reilly, J.1. In this suit the District Munsif made declarations (1) that the village of Hasanapuram has been dedicated for the upkeep of the Badhu Sahib Darga and the mosque near it in the village of Pallavaram and also for the support of the mujavars of the said Darga and mosque; (2) that the plaintiff-defendants 1-8 and 25-29 and certain other persons are entitled to do mujavar service in the said Darga and mosque and share in the surplus proceeds of the income of the said village and the other properties appertaining to the said Darga and mosque and also to share in two-sevenths of the collections made in the Urus festival conducted at that Durga and mosque; (3) that the plaintiff and defendants 5, 6, 7 and 8 are each entitled to certain arithmetical shares in the income; (4) that none of the parties except defendant 1 was entitled to manage the Darga, mosque or property; and (5) that defendant 1 was entitled to continue in management until some other arrangement was made by compete...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Alagathai Anni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad96
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 claiming to be the illegitimate sons of one Kumaraswami Mudali against defendant 1,. his widow. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of defendant 1. Defendant i is the daughter-in-law of a deceased daughter. Defendant 5 is defendant 3's husband's brother. Defendant 6 is the son of defendant 3. Defendants 7 and 11 are the brothers of defendant 1's husband. Defendants' 8, 9 and 10 are the sons of defendant 7. Defendant 12 is the mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2.2. The case for plaintiffs 1 and 2 is that Ramasundarathammal, their mother was under the continuous concubinage of Kumaraswami Mudali ever since she attained maturity and they are her sons by Kumaraswami Mudali that they (plaintiffs 1 and 2) and defendant 12 were under the protection of Kumaraswami Mudali till his death and under Hindu Law they are entitled to a share in Kumaraswami Mudali's estate. On the death of Kumaraswami Mudali a...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Mahoboob HussaIn Sahib Vs. Mir SurayudIn Sahib Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.150
Reilly, J.1. In this suit the District Munsif made declarations: (1) That 'the village of Hassanapuram has been dedicated for the upkeep of the Badhu Sahib Darga and the mosque near it in the village of Pallavaramand also for the support of the majavars of the said Darga and mosque.'(2) That the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1-8 and 25 and 29 and certain other persons are entitled to do majavar service in the said Darga and mosque and share in the surplus proceeds of the income of the said village and the other properties appertaining to the said Darga and mosque and also to share in two sevenths of the collections made in the urus festival conducted at that Darga and mosque.(3) That the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 are each entitled to certain arithmetical shares in the income (4) that none of the parties except defendant No. 1 was entitled to manage the Darga, mosque or property and (5) that defendant No. 1 was entitled to continue in management until some other arrangem...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarambody Vijiaraghavachariar Vs. Ramanujachariar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad37; 114Ind.Cas.233; (1928)55MLJ859
1. In this case the widow, having effected certain alienations of her husband's property of which one was held not to be for necessity and consequently not binding on the reversion, afterwards purported to surrender the whole of her estate in favour of the reversioner. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Rangaswami Goundan v. Nachiappa Goundan a surrender in order to be valid must be a surrender of the complete interest of the widow in the estate. And Lord Morris is quoted at page 532 as follows:It may be accepted that, according to Hindu Law, the widow can accelerate the estate of the heir by conveying absolutely and destroying her life-estate. It was essentially necessary to withdraw her own life-estate so that the whole estate should get vested at once in the grantee.2. This doctrine was accepted in that case and explained by the further observation:It is the effacement of the widow, an effacement which in other circumstances is effected by actual death or by civil death, which o...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Sivapatha Mudaliar Vs. Sikandder Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ37
Phillips, J.1. The only question for decision here is whether the word 'licensed' in Section 104(3)(c) of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920 means licensed under Clause (2) of the same section or in the wider sense of licensed for any purpose whatever. The appellant contends that if a license is granted under Section 166 to use a motor vehicle to ply for hire or to take passengers or goods at certain rates then such a vehicle is one licensed within the meaning of Section 104 and is not liable to pay toll. To put this general construction upon the word 'licensed' when it follows immediately after the clause dealing with certain particular licenses would be straining the words of the section and consequently the interpretation put upon it by the District Judge seems to be a correct one. The various arguments put forward here have all been dealt with in his judgment and there is really nothing to be added thereto. The question of construing 'Taxing Acts' in the strictest sense in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Rajamier Vs. M.R.M.A. Subramaniam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1201
ORDERPhillips, J.49. In view of the objections that have been raised to the draft decree it is necessary to further explain the intention of the Court in the judgment. So far as Appeal No. 106 of 1918 is concerned it appears that the 49th respondent was an unnecessary party as the lower Court has found that he was not liable to repay any amount. It is admitted that no relief was claimed against him and that his name was included in the appeal by mistake. As he has had to come to Court to answer the appeal owing to appellant's fault he is entitled to some costs. We think in the circumstances that he should get half his costs in that appeal. So far as the other respondents are concerned their costs will be apportioned in accordance with the, amounts claimed.50. The other question that is raised is with reference to the provisions of the lower Courts' decree regarding the jewels. These jewels having been sold defendant 4 had realized his money out of the sale and it is therefore useless t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »