Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Subbu Shettethi and ors. Vs. Krishnacharya and ors.

Subbu Shettethi and ors. vs Krishnacharya and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 06, 1910
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784694

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbu Shettethi and ors.

Respondent

Krishnacharya and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1911)21MLJ159

Excerpt

- 1 we do not think any general rule can be laid down for all cases of this kind; here a number of members of the family were charged with rioting. the sessions judge found that it was not proved that they were present at the riot and acquitted them on appeal. we think that it is impossible to say that the courts were wrong in holding the karnavan was entitled in the circumstances to raise money on the security of the family property for the defence, of the members of the family, if the money could not otherwise be procured, a question which is not before us.2. the second appeal is dimissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1 We do not think any general rule can be laid down for all cases of this kind; here a number of members of the family were charged with rioting. The Sessions Judge found that it was not proved that they were present at the riot and acquitted them on appeal. We think that it is impossible to say that the courts were wrong in holding the Karnavan was entitled in the circumstances to raise money on the security of the family property for the defence, of the members of the family, if the money could not otherwise be procured, a question which is not before us.

2. The second appeal is dimissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial