Chennai Court December 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.
Alimamma Vs. Amade Beari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad510; (1930)58MLJ571
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This second appeal turns on the construction of Exhibit C which purports to be a wakf deed giving certain property to two minor girls. The deed Exhibit C says that the two girls may enjoy the property from generation to generation according to female descent. Then it goes on to state that they should perform charities on the anniversary days of their ancestors in the house situated in the Bagayat of the land and that they should not alienate the property in any manner and that if any alienations were made, they would be void. It concludes that their male descendants and their descendants and the husbands of the female descendants shall have no reason to claim any manner of right in the property. One of the donees died and her husband and her son who are the plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition. The defence of the defendants was that under the wakf deed the plaintiffs had no right to the property presumably on the ground that the donee's husband and the...
Karri Adeyya and ors. Vs. Tammalampudi Govindu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ417
Curgenven, J.1. The question primarily arising in this second appeal is one of limitation. The reversioners sue for a declaration that the widow's alienation is not binding on them after her life-time. There were two mortgages of the same property. The first was effected during the widow's minority by her mother, admittedly a guardian de facto, by Exhibit II in 1906. The second (Exhibit I) in renewal, was by the widow herself, after she came of age, in 1913. I think that if Exhibit II is only voidable, and not void, the plaintiffs must seek theirs declaration with regard to it, just as though it had been executed by the widow herself, and that it is not enough to obtain a declaration only with regard to the later mortgage. Their learned Advocate has endeavoured to reason that, even if so, time will not run against his clients until either the widow ratifies or the time allowed her to avoid her guardian's act has expired, but neither on principle nor upon any authority shown to me do I ...
A.R.R.M.N. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Kadir Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad606; (1930)58MLJ653
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The 4th defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff is a salt merchant trading at Erode. The defendants, it was alleged, were trading at Tinnevelly in salt. The plaintiff purchased from the firm of the defendants in March, 1922, 400 bags of salt. The salt was sent by the defendants to the several places mentioned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the defendants the price of the salt which included the excise duty of Rs. 2,000 charged on the 400 bags calculated at Rs. 5 per bag according to the rate of excise duty prevalent at the time. The transaction took place on the 5th March, 1922. Subsequently the Government of India reduced the excise duty on salt from Rs. 5 to 2-8-0 per bag. It was to have effect from a date prior to the 5th March, 1922. The defendants' firm accordingly obtained refund from the Government of Rs. 1,000 representing the difference in the excise duty at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per bag in respect of the 400 bags. This a...
Mantipragada Sivaramayya Vs. Kapa Venkatasubbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ341
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff bought a third share in the dwelling-house and he sued for partition of it. The members of the family occupying the house were the 1st defendant and the plaintiff's vendor, the 3rd defendant, who were brothers, and the 2nd defendant, son of a deceased brother. The 1st defendant died during suit and his widow, the 6th defendant, was added as legal representative and in that capacity she applied for the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act of 1893, The question is whether it applies to the circumstances of the case. The family although occupying the house in common was divided in status. Section 4 has as one of its conditions that the share of the dwelling-house in question must belong to 'an undivided family'. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff, now appellant before me, that this phrase cannot apply to a family divided,, in status but must be restricted to what we ordinarily know as a joint Hindu family. There is no Madras decision upon this po...
C. Meenambal Ammal Vs. Aburubammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad688; (1930)59MLJ160
Reilly, J.1. This appeal is against an order made by the learned Chief Justice as Mr. Justice Beasley in execution proceedings. In November, 1921, one Thayammal, who was the widow of Munuswami Mudali, with her brother Kanniappa Mudali jointly executed two promissory notes in favour of Aburubammal, who is the respondent before us. Kanniappa Mudali became an insolvent, and Aburubammal brought a suit against Thayammal on the notes. That suit was compromised in April, 1925 ; and on the basis of the compromise a consent decree was made, under which Thayammal had to pay Rs. 1,750 in instalments and the whole amount was made a charge upon a house in Madras called 'Ganesa Vilas'. In December, 1925, Thayammal surrendered her interest in that property and in her husband's estate to his reversioners ; and they a month or so later sold the house to Meenambal, who is the appellant before us. In June, 1926, Thayammal died; and the execution petition with which we are concerned was put in on the 30th...
Meenakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. A. Rangaswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad911; (1930)59MLJ752
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The landholder proceeded to take steps under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act to attach and sell the holding of the ryots for non-payment of arrears alleged to be due to him by the ryots. The ryots instituted the two suits, Sectins Nos. 242 and 250 of 1922, to set aside the attachment under Section 112. Second Appeal No. 2242 relates to the suit filed to set aside the attachment in respect of the arrears for fasli 1329 and Second Appeal No. 2243 relates to the suit similarly instituted to set aside the attachment made by the landholder in respect of the arrears for fasli 1328. The main pleas raised by the ryots, the plaintiffs in these suits, were that the landholder had agreed on the 31st March, 1920, to transfer his rights as landholder in favour of a stranger. He took proceedings in respect of rent due for fasli 1329 on 15th August, 1920, and in respect of rent due for fasli 1328 in June, 1920. The sale-deed, however, was executed only on the 16th August...
(Chennubhotla) Venkatasubbarayudu Vs. (Duvvuri) Nagamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad570
Curgenven, J.1. The property in suit was twice mortgaged, first by the original owner, Chenna Peribhotlu, and again by Yegyanna the purchaser of the equity of redemption. The first mortgagee sued in O.S. No. 369 of 1897, making parties Peribhotlu and Yegyanna (with his sons), but not the puisne mortgagee, and obtained a decree. The puisne mortgagee sued in O. Section 184 of 1901, impleading Yegyanna and his sons, and obtained a decree on 15th November 1901. After this decree in 1.902, defendant 4 through whom the plaintiffs (now respondents) claim, purchased the property in Court sale under the prior mortgagee's decree. The property was again sold under the puisne mortgagee's decree and bought by defendant 3, who is the appellant before me. The question for decision is whether the title of the 4th or of the 3rd defendant is to prevail.2. An answer in favour of each claimant may, if I construe them correctly, be derived from cases decided by Courts. Broadly stated the one view is that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›