Chennai Court May 1940 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.
P.A. Raju Chettiar Vs. Minor Shanmugam Pillai Alias Sarangapani Pillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad245; (1940)2MLJ376
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question of the construction of a will. One Shanmugam Pillai, the maternal great-grandfather of the first, second and third respondents and the grandfather of the fourth respondent, died in November, 1917, and by his will directed that the balance of the income of his estate, after allowing for a charitable bequest, should be paid yearly by the trustees appointed by the will to his daughter Ponnammal during her lifetime. Then follow these provisions:After her death all my properties should go in equal shares to such of my aforesaid daughter Ponnammal's sons or sons' children as are alive. The said trustees should put them in possession of the properties as aforesaid at the appointed time according to their respective shares. At the time of such delivery of possession, if those who take the property are 'minors they (trustees) should manage only their share of properties and deliver possession thereof as soon as the minor becomes ...
Yelamanchilli Basavayya Vs. Jaldu Manikyala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad37; (1940)2MLJ340
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question under Act IV of 1938. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor under a decree which was executed on 20th September, 1937, by the sale of five acres of his property. For some reason apparently connected with proceedings under the Debt Conciliation Act, the sale was not confirmed until February, 1939. Meanwhile, Madras Act IV of 1938 having come into force, the debtor applied on 20th June, 1938, to scale down the decree. He does not, however, appear to have filed any application under Section 20 to stay proceedings in execution of the decree. The result was that, before the application under Madras Act IV of 1938 was heard, in the ordinary course a confirmation order was passed with reference to the sale held in September, 1937. In March, 1939, the learned District Munsif dismissed this application as incompetent, the sale having been held before the date 1st October, 1937, stipulated in Section 23oftheAct and the decree having been satisfied...
Tiruchendur Sri Subramaniaswami Temple, Through Its Dharmakartha A.C.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad39; (1940)2MLJ510
Pandrang Row, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal is that the finding of the Court below on a question of construction of a will is wrong. The will is one about which there is no dispute so far as its execution and validity are concerned. The testator was a retired Deputy Collector, Minakshisundaram Pillai, who was lying very ill in hospital at the time he made the will and died the very next day. The will is very short, being in fact, a model of brevify and it runs, as follows:I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son Pichai Pillai the right to all my properties, and moneys, etc., and he shall alone enjoy them. If he or his son has no child, the said properties shall pass to Subramaniaswami at Tiruchehdur.2. This was executed on the 20th May, 1919. The next day a codicil was added to the effect that with the money due to the testator his elder brothers should...
Sri Rajah Yenumala Latchanna Dora Varu Vs. Sri Rajah Yenumala Mallu Do ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad55; (1940)2MLJ572
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff brought the present suit against his brother and his father for the B schedule properties which, he said, were allotted to him in accordance with an agreement. In the alternative, he prayed for partition. The defendant's case is that the property is for the most part his self-acquired property and that the only property to which the plaintiff is entitled is that in Schedule I. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff made an application to the Court for an interim maintenance of Rs. 800 a month. The learned District, Judge has awarded Rs. 250 a month.2. The plaintiff is not entitled to an order of the nature passed. In Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh v. Sita Debi (1923) 77 I.C. 718, a Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court held that a Court has no inherent power under Section 151' to pass such an order. That case was very like the present, in that the plaintiff sued on a maintenance agreement, and only differed from it in that the defendant th...
Radhakrishna Chetty and anr. Vs. Miss Teckla Schomberg
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad115; (1940)2MLJ867
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question to be decided in this revision relates to the jurisdictional value placed by the plaintiff in her suit for redemption in which she asked for certain surplus profits to be decreed in her favour in addition. The lower Court relying on Jalaldeen Marakayar v. Vijayasami (1915) 29 M.L.J. 142 : I.L.R. 39 Mad. 447 and Grandhi Pothanna v. Satyananda Charyulu : AIR1931Mad479 , held that the value which the plaintiff had placed on her relief for redemption would cover the relief in regard to surplus profits as well and that the latter need not be valued separately. The defendants have filed the present revision to test the correctness of this order.2. Since the value, determinable for the computation of. court-fees and for purposes of jurisdiction, is, under the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, to be the same, the determination of the latter would depend on the decision as to the requisite court-fee required on the present plaint. Learned C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›