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.
(Lodd) Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. Rajah of Karvetnagar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad404; 121Ind.Cas.598; 122Ind.Cas.519
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order of the lower Court in a matter in execution. In O.S. No. 12 of 1901, the appellant obtained against the respondent 1 a mortgage decree under which the amount now owing is said to be about 43 lakhs of rupees. In 1905 he put in an execution petition E.P. No. 145 of 1905 in the lower Court to bring the mortgage property, Narayanavanam Taluk in Karvetnagar zamindari, to sale. In various Ways that sale has been delayed and postponed until 1925, when it was eventually begun but so far has not come to an end. In the meantime, respondent 2 on 6th -January 1927 bought at a Court sale in another suit, O.S. No. 9 of 1912, respondent 1's equity of redemption in this property. In M. P. No. 17 of 1927, respondent 2 applied in the lower Court to be brought on record in the appellant's execution petition as the present holder of the equity of redemption in place of respondent 1 the original judgment-debtor. That was allowed by the Cour...
Kasi Iyer and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad821
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by respondents 2 and 3 in Original Petition No. 153-A of 1923 in Insolvency Petition No. 13 of 1922 before the District Judge of West Tanjore, against an order passed under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, in the following circumstances:At the instance of a creditor who put in an application on 14th December 1921 respondent 1 in the lower Court, one Sivaswami Iyer, was adjudicated an in-solvent in 1923. The insolvent was carrying on business in rice, grains and pulses mainly at Madras, Negapatam, and Rangoon. In the course of his business he used to take' moneys from time to time from the appellants, who are bankers, carrying on a large business at Kallidaikurichi. They had extensive business at Madras, Tinnevelly, Tuticorin and other places also. The insolvent was introduced to them by one Ramaswami Ayyar who knew both the parties very well. In the course of their dealings some hundies to the extent of Rs. 7,000 were drawn by the insolvent i...
Soundararaja Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Rukmani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad500
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration and for some-incidental reliefs. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. Plaintiff 1 had two brothers, Rangaswami Ayyangar and Varahaswami Iyyangar. Varahaswami Iyyangar died in January 1890 but before his death he adopted plaintiff 1's second son, Krishnaswamy Iyyangar. Plaintiff 1's two other sons are now plaintiffs 2 and' 3. The whole family constituted a joint family and continued joint until 1915. It is admitted that plaintiff 1's brother Rangaswami Iyyangar was living an extravagant life which ended in large indebtedness and suits and decrees against him. The rest of the family found this situation inconvenient. By this time Krishnaswamy Iyyangar has taken a law degree and became a High Court Vakil and had settled for practice at Negapatam. He found that the only way of saving the family was by a suit for partition and getting rid of Rangaswami: Iyyangar. Krishnaswami Iyyangar addressed a letter, Ex. Z to his u...
Ambi and anr. Vs. Kunhikavamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad661; 118Ind.Cas.296
11. This appeal is against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in a suit by a Malabar jenmi and melchartdar for redemption and possession of the plaint properties from his kanomdars. Defendant 1 was the person most interested in the kanom. He has since died and his legal representative contests the appeal. The lower Court gave a preliminary decree for redemption in favour of plaintiff 2 on payment of a kanom amount of Rs. 14,251-14-1 less certain arrears of rent due. The appeal petition, which is by defendant 1, raised various grounds for discussion but the appeal has centred round the extent and value of the improvements. A memorandum of objections has been filed and argued by plaintiff 2.12. When the appeal first came before us for hearing the appellant advanced an argument that the procedure of the lower Court in the matter of the issue of successive commissions to value the improvements was illegal. The suit was filed on 1st October 1917. In March 1918 the lower Cour...
V.S. Jagannatha Rao Pantulu Garu Vs. Mangalagiri Ramacharulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad687
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The application was made to the District Judge under Section 78, Religious Endowments Act. The applicant says that he is the trustee of the temple in question appointed by the Board in the scheme settled by it under Section 57. He applied to be put in possession of some land, a house and certain moveable property. The District Judge allowed the application only in regard to some of the moveables, namely, items 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 16 and 17, Schedule C, and he dismissed the application in regard to the land and the house.2. I shall first deal with the land. In regard to this, respondent 1 had' filed a suit against the 2nd claiming it in the first instance, as his separate property. In the course of the trial, however, he made a distinct admission that it was trust property and the learned District Munsif who heard the suit recorded the admission and after coming to the conclusion that is was trust property, gave judgment, holding that both the plaintiff and the defenda...
M. Chengalroya Chetty Vs. Nainiappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.133
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In this petition the plaintiff attacks the decision of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The suit was filed on a promissory note against two defendants. The trial Judge found that the 2nd defendant was a minor and dismissed the suit as against him. The decision was confirmed by the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff (petitioner) relies upon Section 120 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which enacts that no maker of a promissory note shall in a suit therein by a holder in due course be permitted to deny the validity of the instrument as originally made. The point to decide is--Is a party precluded under this section from denying the validity of the note on the ground that he did not possess the capacity to contract? Section 26 of the same Act says that every person capable of contracting may bind himself by the making of a promissory note. According to this section, therefore, capacity to incur liability as makes of the note ...
Kattiya Pillai Alias Sernthaya Pillai and anr. Vs. Ramaswamia Pillai ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad396; (1929)56MLJ394
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction? The suit has been filed in the Court of the District Munsif and the defendants object that it is not the proper Court and the Court having jurisdiction is the Sub-Court. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, the 1st, the 2nd and the 3rd defendants are sons of one Perumal Pillai. The 1st and 2nd defendants, it is said, have put forward a will which is alleged to be that of their father. The plaintiff says that this will is a forgery and that there are previous wills which confer upon him a larger benefit. He prays in his plaint, first, that the will may be declared to be a forgery; secondly, that the will may be cancelled; and thirdly, that the order of the Sub-Registrar registering the will may also be cancelled. I may mention that it is alleged by the plaintiff that he and the 3rd defendant are in possession of the property. The District Munsif has held tha...
Roman Catholic Mission Vs. (Medai Dalavoi) Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad417
Jackson, J. 1. Suit in redemption. The Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part; on appeal the District Judge decreed it in full; and the defendant prefers this second appeal.2. Delavoy Kumarswami Mudaly was a great landowner in Tinnevelly. In 1803 three branches which had descended from his three sons effected partition. The youngest branch represented by Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar and his younger brother Ramalinga Mudaliar had the property divided under a precept from the Madura Court in 1824. In 1850, these two brothers themselves separated, and in O.S. No. 1 of 1851 Ramalingam sued for partition. The above facts are taken from the judgment in that suit, Ex. G.3. The present plaintiff is grandson of Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar. In proof of the mortgage which he seeks to redeem, he produces a counterpart Ex. A, executed in 1856 in favour of his grandfather, by one Khadar Lebbai. It seems from the recital in that document that the property was mortgaged by the middle branch to...
Kalliya Pillai Alias Sernthaya Pillai and anr. Vs. Ramaswamy Pillai (i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.35
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction. The suit has been filed in the Court of the District Munsif and the defendants object that it is not the proper Court and the Court having jurisdiction is the Sub-Court. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, the 1st, the 2nd and defendant 3rd are sons of one Perumal Pillai. The 1st and 2nd defendants it is said have put forward a Will which is alleged to be that of their father. The plaintiff says that this Will is a forgery and that there are previous Wills which confer upon him a larger benefit. He prays in his plaint; first, that the Will may be declared to be a forgery, secondly that the Will may be cancelled and thirdly, that the order of the Sub-Registrar registering the Will may also be cancelled, I may mention that it is alleged by the plaintiff that he and the 3rd defendant are in possession of the property. The District Munsif has held that he had ...
The Tinnevelly District Roman Catholic Mission Through Its Present Sup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.154
1. Suit in redemption. The Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part; on appeal the District Judge decreed it in full, and the defendant prefers this second appeal.2. Dalavoy Kumarasami Mudaly was a great land owner in Tinnevelly. In 1803 three branches which had descended from his three sons effected partition. The youngest branch represented by Tirumalayyappa Mudaliar and his younger brother Ramalinga Mudaliar had the property divided under a precept from the Madura Court in 1824. In 1850 these two brothers themselves separated and in O.S. No. 1 of 1851 Ramalingam sued for partition. The above facts are taken from the judgment in that a suit, Ex. G.3. The present plaintiff is grandson of Tirumalayappa Mudaliar. In proof of the mortgage which he seeks to redeem, he produces a counterpart, Ex. A, executed in 1856 in favour of his grandfather, by one Khader Labbai. It seems from the recital in that document that the property was mortgaged by the middle branch to a Chetti and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›