Chennai Court January 1929 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.
(Yanne) Bavajee and anr. Vs. (Pisipati) Annapurnamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad403a
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Pullamma who died on 5th December 1925. They claim that, on their mother's death, they became entitled to the properties of their father Narayanappa and in this suit they seek to get certain alienations set aside. The suit was filed in December 1926 and on 10th March 1927 one Nagabhushanam sent a notice to defendants, claiming the properties to which the suit relates, on the ground that he is the reversionary heir of Shastri, the son of Narayanappa. The question really resolves itself into this. Who died later the son or the father? In other words, who is the last male holder. The plaintiffs' case is that Narayanappa was, whereas Nagabhushanam's case is that Shastri was. One of the issues framed in the suit reads thus :.Who was the last male holder of the suit properties?2. In these circumstances, the defendants in the three suits in question applied that Nagabhushanam might be made a party defendant. There was some delay in ma...
Yanne Bavajee and ors. Vs. Pisipati Annapurnama and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.812
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Pullama who died on the 5th of December, 1925. They claim that, on their mother's death, they became entitled to the properties of their father Narayanappa and in this suit they seek to get certain alienations set aside. The suit was filed in December, 1926, and on the 10th of March, 1927, one Nagabushanam sent a notice to the defendants claiming the properties to which the suit relates on the ground that he is the reversionary heir of Shastri the son of Narayanappa. The question really resolves itself into this who died later the son or the father? In other words, who is the last male holder? The plaintiff's case is that Narayanappa was, whereas Nagabushanam's case is that Shastri was. One of the issues framed in the suit reads thus: Who was the last male holder of the suit properties?2. In these circumstances the defendants in the three suits in question applied that Nagabushanam mignt be made a party defendant. There was som...
In Re: P. Sankaran Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ551
Odgers, J.1. In this case the facts have been fully and I think correctly set out by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The accused who was the Sub-Postmaster of a small place called Cherambadi was convicted of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of a value payable article. This article was a cover addressed to himself containing a railway receipt for certain motor car parts which the proprietor of a bus plying between Cherambadi and Calicut, P.W. 3, had induced the accused to order for him from Bombay. The goods were duly ordered and arrived at Calicut Station and the accused took possession of this V.P.P. cover and of course of the railway receipt and also obtained delivery of the goods from the Calicut Station (or rather the bus conductor, P.W. 4, was the man who actually obtained the goods.) The Bombay firm who supplied the goods sent them on the 27th April and on the 29th the parcel receipt was presented and the goods delivered. The Bombay firm was paid on the 27th ...
Alluri Venkatasomaraju and ors. Vs. Alluri Varahalaraju Alias Ramabadr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad48; 122Ind.Cas.171; (1929)57MLJ228
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the appellants. In September, 1920, they brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits of certain lands from the defendants. Plaintiffs' father bought the land in question from defendant No. 1 in 1911. Proceedings were taken in June, 1915, against the plaintiffs' father under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, when defendant No. 2 resisted his possession in which the possession of the 2nd defendant in the land was confirmed. The question is whether those proceedings bind the plaintiffs who are the undivided sons of their father Alluri Subbaraju who bought the property on behalf of the joint family. The importance of it is this, that if these proceedings do bind the present plaintiff they are out of time with this suit, because it was instituted more than three years from the date of the final order in the case (Ex. III) under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued that this order does not bind the sons who were no...
Ganapathy Vs. Subramanyam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.167
Phillips, J.1. In this suit the first defendant is the father of the first plaintiff and defendant, by different mothers. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the first plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and of the second defendant. The suit was instituted by the first plaintiff on behalf of himself and his minor sons for a partition. It is alleged that the first plaintiff wished to effect a partition in 1915 or 1916, but no partition appears to have been effected before this suit was filed in 1920, and it has been shown that there was any separation in status. During the Pendency of this suit first defendant died on 26th October, 193, and Plaintiff died On the second plaintiff who had attained majority elected to continue the suit on behalf of himself and his minor brother the third plaintiff. At the end of the trial, the third plaintiffs mother applied to be made guardian of her minor son, the third plaintiff, and Sated that the partition was not in the interest of the third pl...
P. Sankaran Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.496
Odgers, J.1. In this case the facts have been fully and I think correctly set out by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The accused who was the Sub-Postmaster of a small place called Cherambadi was convicted of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of a value payable article. This article was a cover addressed to himself containing a Railway receipt for certain motor car parts which the proprietor of a bus plying between Cherambadi and Calicut, P. W. No. 3, had induced the accused to order for him from Bombay. The goods were duly ordered and arrived at Calicut station and the accused took possession of this V.P.P. cover and, of course, of the Railway receipt and also obtained delivery of the goods from the Calicut station (or rather the bus conductor, P. W. No. 4, was the man who actually obtained the goods). The Bombay Firm who supplied the goods sent them on the 27th April and on the 29th the parcel receipt was presented and the goods delivered. The Bombay Firm was paid ...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Kanoo Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad573; 118Ind.Cas.494
Phillips, J.1. Respondent 1 in this appeal is a creditor of a family firm consisting of the appellant, his uncle and his uncle's son, and it is alleged in his insolvency petition that this family firm owed a debt to respondent 1, that they ware unable to pay their debts, that one member of the firm had absconded and that the place of business had been closed. Respondent 1 had already filed a suit for the recovery of his debt and there were other creditors who filed suits shortly after this insolvency petition was filed. The District Judge states that the parties agreed that they would be bound by the findings come to in these suits. The real question at issue in these suits was whether the appellant and his cousin were liable for the debts incurred by the managing member of the firm. The Subordinate Judge found that the firm was a family firm and was conducted by all the members and the debts were binding not only on the managing member but also on the joint family consisting of the ap...
immani Seshayya and ors. Vs. Dronamraju Lakshminarasimha Rao Pantulu ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad160; (1929)57MLJ800
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Devadoss and raises an important question in regard to the effect of a certain transaction evidenced by two documents, dated the 2nd May, 1865. The two deeds may be treated as practically one and the purport of the arrangement is shortly this. A sum of Rs. 2,200 is advanced to the borrower, who agrees to pay an equal sum as interest thereon. The lender is put in possession of certain lands belonging to the borrower and as between the parties the annual profits are estimated to be Rs. 240. The lender is required annually to pay Rs. 100 for the revenue and village expenses, appropriate Rs. 80 towards the mortgage debt and pay the balance of Rs. 60 to the debtor. It is further provided that after the debt is discharged in 55 years in the manner set forth, the creditor is to surrender possession of the land to the borrower. The only remaining material clause is, that if the lender fails to pay Rs. 60, h...
P.L.S.P. Muthiah Chetty Through His Son and Authorised Agent Palaniapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad627; (1929)56MLJ776
Ramesam, J.1. These two appeals arise out. of the same original suit and in each appeal there is a memorandum of objections. Appeal No. 340 of 1924 is by the plaintiff and the memorandum of objections is by the 1st respondent who is the 1st defendant. Appeal No. 204 of 1925 is filed by defendants 1 and 7 and the memorandum of objections is preferred by the plaintiff who is the 1st respondent.2. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: Defendants 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th defendant entered into a partnership for carrying on a money-lending business at Harit Buntar in the Federated Malay States under the name and style of R.M.V.R.A.M. This was on 23rd March 1914. Four partners had equal shares in it. The 4th defendant's father died in August 1916; but the business was continued with the 4th defendant as a partner in his place by the consent of all the partners. In or about April 1917 a new partnership was constituted by taking in two new partners, defendants 5 and 6. In the new...
P.L.S.R. Muthia Chetty Through His Son and Authorised Agent Palaniappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.488
Ramesam, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same original suit and in each appeal there is a memorandum of objections. Appeal No. 340 of 1924, is by the plaintiff and the memorandum of objections is by the 1st respondent who is the 1st defendant. Appeal No. 204 of 1925, is filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 7 and the memorandum of objections is preferred by the plaintiff who is the 1st respondent.2. The facts may be briefly stated as follows : Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th defendant entered into a partnership for carrying on a money-lending business at Parit Buntar in the Federated Malay States under the name and style of R.M.V.R.A.N. This was on 23rd March, 1914. Four partners had equal shares in it. The 4th defendant's father died in August, 1916; but the business was continued with the 4th defendant as a partner in his place by the consent of all the partners. In or about April, 1917, a new partnership was constituted by taking in two new partners, defendants Nos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »