Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad112; (1938)2MLJ1010
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal relates to the interpretation of a will dated 11th September, 1920. The testator at the time of his death left a widow an unmarried daughter who is now the plaintiff and two married daughters by another wife who are defendants 1 and 2. The will is an unprofessional document written in Tamil and its important provisions are as follows. It starts with a preamble in which the testator says:After my death my properties and debts should, after considering the details mentioned hereunder, be enjoyed.2. Then he goes on to specify his properties and his debts. Thereafter he makes a legacy to his sister and a small legacy to each of his married daughters, and then he makes provision for the payment of his funeral expenses. Finally there is the last clause which says:As per the above directions my wife Thulasi Bai should do all acts aforesaid with full rights,the words in Tamil being Both the Courts below reading the preamble along with the final clause have held that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)1MLJ112
King, J.1. This appeal raises a question of the interpretation of Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts are that in execution of three decrees against the same judgment-debtors the same property was attached. Two of the decree-holders one of whom is the present appellant, had their decrees transferred to the Sub-Court, Narsapur. The third decree-holder, who is the present first respondent, had his decree transferred to the District Munsif of Narsapur. Subsequently action was taken under Section 63 by which the proceedings before the District Munsiff of Narsapur were called up to the Subordinate Judge's Court. The decree-holder, whose decree had been thus called up, that is to say, the first respondent, then applied to the learned Subordinate Judge to sell the attached property. The sale was duly held. Thereupon the present appellant filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to set aside the sale on two grounds (1) that it was v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad54; (1938)2MLJ740
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note. One of the points inconsistent with his story of discharge was the fact that though he had a receipt, he had not got the original promissory note. His explanation was that at the time when the panchayat settled the terms of the discharge and the receipt was given, the plaintiff had said that the promissory note was with his vakil but was not available. In cross-examination it was elicited that the vakil in question was the same gentleman who was conducting the case for the plaintiff. Though the defence evidence was taken first, the plaintiff did not thereafter examine his vakil with reference to the custody of the original promissory note. When the appeal had been pending for some time there was an application dated the 22nd November, 1933, by the plaintiff for admission of additional evidence by examination of the vakil in question in order to show that the promissory note was at that time in his (plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad21; (1938)2MLJ863
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted on three charges under Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, read with Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced on each charge to one year's rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. Section 7(1)(a) reads as follows:Whoever with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad98; (1939)1MLJ23
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. We have found very little difficulty either in the ascertainment of the true principle of law or in the application of it to the facts disclosed in this appeal. Whether and to what extent a Hindu widow in possession of her husband's estate can make a gift in favour of a dependant relation or for objects considered meritorious by the Hindu religion was the question discussed before us at the hearing of this appeal. It is unnecessary for a decision of this question to carry a research into the ancient texts of Hindu Law, or indeed to do anything more than refer to two decisions of the Privy Council in which the principle has, if we may say so with respect, been clearly and precisely defined. As early as 1861 it was Laid down in The Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata Narrainapah (1861) 8 M.I.A. 529 where their Lordships observed that:For religious and charitable purposes or those which are supposed to conduce to the spiritual welfare of her husband she ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad40; (1938)2MLJ883
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the only real question was whether the second defendant was or was not the adopted son of the plaintiff. Plaintiff denied the adoption. In the course of the arguments, two documents were exhibited on behalf of the defence, namely, Exs. XI and XI (a).2. Ex. XI is a copy of a deposition by the plaintiff in a criminal case, forming part of the printed record of the revision proceedings in the High Court. Ex. XI (a) is a copy taken from that printed copy. In this deposition the plaintiff makes an admission which if the copy is correct, practically puts an end to his case. He admits that the second defendant was his adopted son. When the plaintiff was in the box, he was asked whether he had made such a statement and he said:I did not admit there that second defendant was my son. I said that he was by courtesy my son as he married my wife's brother's daughter.Evidently when the plaintiff was cross-examined the printed copy of the depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad644; (1939)1MLJ334
Mockett, J.1. The plaintiff who holds under a lease from the Zamindar of Marungapuri sued for possession of a certain land which the defendants had taken from him. He alleged that the land was zamin private land and not pannai land. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had taken a lease of the said land as pannai land. At the settlement of issues the District Munsiff dealing with the burden of proof said:The plaintiff having taken the lease of the suit lands as pannai lands, I think the burden of proving that they are ryoti lands is on him. The issue will therefore be amended as follows: 'Whether the lands are ryoti lands'?.2. A Civil Revision Petition has been filed against that order. Two questions arise (1) Whether that order is wrong and (2) if wrong, whether I should interfere under Section 115. Under Section 185 of the Madras Estates Land Act, when in any suit or proceeding it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is the landholder's private land, regard shall be h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad994; (1938)2MLJ701
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note which was executed in circumstances about which there is no dispute. The plaintiff is the maternal uncle of a child widow and was acting as her guardian after the death of her husband. In that capacity, he opened negotiations with the coparceners of the deceased husband of the widow and there was an arbitration and a series of documents came into existence on the same date. The plaintiff as guardian of the widow executed a release deed Ex. II. It recites that in consideration of the execution of a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 in favour of the plaintiff, a fixed amount in lieu of maintenance payable to the widow during all her life time, she surrenders her rights in the estate of her husband's coparceners and renounces all claims which she might have as a result of any change of circumstances, etc., and releases her right to maintenance. On the same date, there is Ex. 1 which is a deed of indemnity executed by the plaintiff. It re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad52; (1938)2MLJ815
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition by the Secretary 'of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of Tanjore to revise an order of the District Munsiff of Kumbakonam dated the 20th January, 1938, on I.A. No. 755 of 1937 in O.S. No. 142 of 1936 on his file, in which the Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of Tanjore is the defendant. The plaintiff in the suit applied under Order 11, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, for an order directing the respondent, that is to say, the defendant in the suit, to produce certain documents, namely, the paimash register of a certain village of fasli 1238, that is, of the year 1828 as well as a letter of 1867 from the Collector of Tanjore to the Inam Commissioner. The learned District Munsiff appears to have thought that because the Collector represented the Secretary of State for India in Council, the defendant in the suit, the Collector could be treated as being himself a party to the suit. The order proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad339
1. Appeal No. 189 of 1937. - This appeal arises out of a suit for partition between two brothers. The plaintiff is the second son of one Nagappa and defendant 1 is the elder son. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant 1 and defendant 4 is the widow of Nagappa. Nagappa died in March 1921; and it is clear from the evidence that at his death, he left the family in very affluent circumstances. He was possessed of immovable properties of considerable value, of valuable jewels and of outstandings estimated at more than three lakhs of rupees, subject to payment of debts estimated at between Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 50,000. In the course of the evidence in this and the connected suits it has been suggested that out of the outstandings then due, considerable allowance must be made for bad debts ; but beyond the suggestion, there is little evidence to show what the extent of the bad debts might have been. The parties belong to the Vysia community; and for some generations at any rate the family ...
Tag this Judgment!