Chennai Court December 1931 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.
Meenakshi Sundaram Chetty Vs. Ranga Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad696
1. The appellant, in this second appeal, is defendant 1. The plaintiff, as assignee for collection, sued the appellant and his mother, defendant 2, on a promissory note executed by the latter as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The District Munsif found that the note was not genuine. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, holding not only that the note was genuine but also that the consideration for it was advanced for purposes binding on defendant 1's estate. His findings, so far as they are findings of fact, we must accept. It is now argued, on the footing of these findings, that defendant 2 had no power to impose a personal liability on her minor son. The question at issue seems to us to be concluded by the opinion of the majority of the Full Bench in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan [1919] 42 Mad. 185 which was that a decree could be passed against a minor's estate on a contract entered into by his guardian in a case in which the estate would have been liable for the oblig...
Kunjunni Nair and anr. Vs. Achutha Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.114
1. Two questions have been raised in this second appeal. The first is at what rate the tenants have to be compensated for their improvements, The suit was brought on a kanom of 1900, which has been given in renewal of a kanom of 1884. One of the terms of the earlier contract, which was repeated in the later, was that compensation for improvements was to be at half their value. Under Section 19 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, contracts entered into before 1st of January, 1886, are not affected by the provisions of the Act, The rate fixed by the contract of 1884 would, therefore, hold good till 1900. The contention of the appellant is that by force of the renewal in that year, it would continue to be effective under the fresh contract. The District Munsif held that the half rate was payable only up till let January, 1886, when the Act came into force. The Subordinate Judge in appeal thought that the case was governed by the Full Bench ruling in Rayarappa Atiti ...
Unithali Ramutti and anr. Vs. Kuttala Padmanabhan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.494
Reilly, J.1. I see no reason to hold that an executor appointed by a will, for which probate need not be obtained and has not been obtained, is exempted from the requirement of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, to produce a succession certificate before he can get a decree for a debt due to the testator's estate. The words of the section appear to me clearly to include such an executor. It is contended by Mr. Govinda Menon that such an executor does not claim 'on succession' within the meaning of the section. But not only would those words in their ordinary meaning include such a testator: Clause 6(1) of the section includes among persons 'so claiming' i.e., on succession, executors who have obtained probate. The opinion of the Full Bench in Ramiah v. Venkatasubbamma 24 Ind. Cas. 852 : 37 Mad. 175 regarding the vesting of the testator's property in an executor by a will for which probate is unnecessary, does not affect this question; and it may be noticed that in that case the ...
C. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. K. Ankappa Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad175; 145Ind.Cas.694
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the effect of a mortgage decree passed against two brothers. The mortgagee sued upon a deed executed by defendant 1 for himself and as guardian of his minor brother, defendant 2, and obtained an ordinary mortgage decree. It so happened that the mortgaged property was sold under a decree obtained on a prior mortgage, and the decree-holder accordingly applied to proceed against the other property of the brothers. He was granted a personal decree against defendant 1, but not against defendant 2, being a minor. He then applied to proceed against what he described as the remaining family property of the judgment-debtors and this has been allowed by the District Munsif upon the ground that the decree was in substance and in effect against defendant 1 as family manager and accordingly that a personal decree passed against him in that capacity would enable the decree-holder to get access to the whole family property. On appeal the learned Subo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›