Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing (Bingi) Neelamma vs Agadi Mareppa on 29 April, 1935

Saripella Lakshmi Narasamma vs Saripella Ammanna Siddhanti And Ors. on 11 February, 1936

4. It was next argued that, as a matter of construction of the language of Ex. II, the bequest in favour of the testator's wife was not limited to Subadramma the then wife of the testator and that the language was sufficient to cover any wife including the plaintiff. Reference was made in this connection to the discussion of some of the relevant authorities in Neelamma v. Mareppa (1935) 70 M.L.J. 128 to which one of us was a party. But in that case the gift was not to the wife by name." No expression of opinion in that case can therefore help the plaintiff in the present case. Our attention has also been drawn to the evidence of D.W. 1, a vakil, who drafted the will under the instructions of the deceased. He has said that the testator instructed him to draw up a will with a bequest for life in his wife's favour and with a remainder in favour of his brothers, and nephews. On this statement of the witness, it was argued that the testator meant a bequest in favour of his wife generally and that the reference to Subadramma which was put in by the witness himself without instructions from the testator must be disregarded. We do not think this is a proper way of interpreting a written document. The testator has undoubtedly signed the document presumably with knowledge of its contents. We very much doubt whether in the particular answer elicited from D.W. 1 it was at all brought home to his mind when the question was put to him to which that answer was given that counsel was going to draw a distinction between reference to wife generally and reference to the then existing wife. But even independently of this consideration when a document which is signed by the testator makes a reference to Subadramma there is no reason to ignore that reference as though it did not form part of the will, merely because in speaking about instructions given to the vakil for drafting the will that reference is not repeated. We are therefore unable to read the gift as one enuring to the benefit of the present plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rukmani Achi And Anr. vs Sampoornathammal on 6 January, 1943

2. The cases referred to by the learned Judge can no longer be regarded as having application here. Order 33, Rule 11 has been amended since the decision in Neelamma v. Mareppa (1935) 70 M.L.J. 128, the latest of the decisions referred to in the judgment under appeal. The rule as it now stands directs that where the plaintiff in a pauper suit fails, the Court shall direct him to pay the Court-fee. The rule provides for one exception, namely, the case of a suit by the next friend of a minor plaintiff. If a suit filed by the next friend has been filed unreasonably or improperly, the Court may order the next friend to pay personally the Court-fee. As the rule reads now it is clearly not open to the Court to order a defendant to pay the Court-fee. It is to be remembered that this is not a question of an order for costs. The Court's discretion in the matter of costs, other than the Court-fee, is not hampered.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1