Chennai Court September 1947 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.
Methuku Narasimhaiah Chetty and anr. Vs. Methuku Sivaramiah Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ532
Yaha Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution and accounts by the plaintiffs instituted in these circumstances. The first and second defendants are the sons of first plaintiff's brother. Plaintiffs 2 to 11 are either the sons or grandsons of the first plaintiff. The third defendant is the son of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was the manager of the family. The first and second defendants filed O.S. No. 18 of 1934 in the District Munsiff's Court of Madanapalle on the 20th January, 1934, for partition. Two preliminary decrees are said to have been passed in that suit on the 8th July, 1936, and on the 26th February, 1941, respectively. During the trial of that suit the first plaintiff as the manager of the family claimed contribution in respect of certain items of expenditure incurred by him for family purposes. He was referred to an independent suit. In pursuance of that direction he filed O.S. No. 171 of 1941 to recover contribution from the defendants towar...
A.R.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. P.N.M.M. Palaniappa Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ589
Horwill, J.1. The suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakotta arose out of a partnership between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, who will be hereafter called the plaintiff and the defendant. The other parties to the suit, with the exception of the fourth defendant, were impleaded because of their relationship to the principal parties, who are the managers of trading families. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. The second defendant is the adopted son of the first defendant and the third defendant is the son of the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the holder of a decree against the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2.2. The plaintiff and the defendant admittedly entered into a partnership and began a money-lending business at Taiping in the Federated Malay States early in 1920. The share-capital was $ 12,125 of which the plaintiff was to contribute $2,000 and the defendant the rest. They, were also to contribute like amounts as men...
The Catholic Mission Presentation Convent by Mother Superior and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad320
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by defendants 6 and 7 from a decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place whereby the title of the respondents 1 to 4 to certain immovable properties was declared, and the appellants were directed to deliver possession of them to the said respondents with mesne profits.2. One Nanjappa Goundan was the original owner of the properties, and on his death many years ago his widow PaJaniammal inherited the properties and was in. enjoyment thereof till 10-1-1931 when she died. Thereupon disputes arose regarding succession to the properties of Nanjappa between respondent 5, who was defendant 1 in the suit who claimed title to be the nearest sapinda and reversioner of Nanjappa on the one hand and defendants 8 and 9 who are the grandsons of Palaniammal's sister and set up title as devisees under her will on the other: respondent 1's father, Palani Goundan, who, it has been found...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›