Chennai Court March 1932 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.
Bondada Manumallaswami and anr. Vs. Pinisetti Chinna Narayanaswami and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad489; 138Ind.Cas.276
1. The question in this second appeal is as to the construction of the will of a Hindu named Jagannatham. The material part of the will reads as follows:After my death, my wife Andalamma shall have the power of gift and sale in all my moveable property, which should remain unsold and undisputed of by me in gift in my life-time. My wife Andalamma should have power to adopt any boy she would like, if she feels inclined to make an adoption, with power to give him such property as she should like, she has power to make such adoptions till my family is perpetuated. If she does not like to make an adoption my sister's sons, viz. (1901) 1 Ch. 939 : 70 L. J. Ch. 591 : 84 L. T. 456 Bondada Manumallaswami and (1887) 56 L.J. Ch. 113 : 56 L. T. 104 Jibu Raghavayyai's son Venkateswararow, should after her life-time, enjoy in equal moieties, with power of gift and sale, they, their sons, grand sons, etc., in succession, (i.e., from generation to generation) such of the property which my wife should ...
R. Foulkes and anr. Vs. Kandasami Pillai Alias Karuppiah Pillai and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad739; (1932)63MLJ949
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are from decisions of our learned colleague Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., in second appeals brought from a batch of suits brought in 1922 by the present appellants (plaintiffs) under Section 77 of the Estates Land Act for rent for faslis 1328, 1329 and 1330 against various ryots of a village called Puliyur in the Sivaganga zemindari of which the appellants (plaintiffs) are now by transfers, to which it is not necessary to refer, entitled to the melvaram and in which the respondents (defendants) are ryots. The suits were for 9/16ths of the rents due on each holding, to which share of rents the plaintiffs had become entitled by the said transfers; as to the other 7/16ths at the time of these suits there was a question between the plaintiffs and one Mayandi who had held the right to that share of rent under a farm lease executed by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, and that question had not been fully settled although we are infor...
Muthiah Pillai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad559
ORDERWalsh, J.1. Six persons were accused in C.C. No. 1451 of 1930 on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Madura Town of whom four were convicted Under Section 325, I.P.C. On appeal two of these were acquitted and the conviction was confirmed as regards accused 1 and 2. This revision petition has been filed by them. There are only two really arguable points in this petition. The first is that the failure of the Court to ask the accused whether they wished to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses after the framing of the charge vitiates the whole proceedings. The second is that the evidence of one of the witnesses in a previous trial, (the present trial being a de novo one), who has since died, is inadmissible. The learned appellate Magistrate has dealt with the first point and stated that the appellants' advocatedoes not seem to have applied for the re-cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Evidently the appellants did not want to re-cross-examine.2. He further held that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›