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.

Krishnasami Chetti Vs. the Natal Emigration Board

Krishnasami Chetti vs The Natal Emigration Board

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 22, 1893
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/786014

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Transfer of Property Act - Act IV of 1882, Section 114--Presidency Small Cause Courts Act--Act XV of 1882, Sections 22, 41. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnasami Chetti

Respondent

The Natal Emigration Board

Legal References

Reported In
(1894)ILR17Mad216

Excerpt

transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 114--presidency small cause courts act--act xv of 1882, sections 22, 41. - 1. it appears that on 13th may 1892 there was a valid tender of rent, interest and costs, and that on 3rd november there was a payment into court of the full amount due up to the 15th november. this being so, the defendants have brought themselves within the terms of section 114 of the transfer of property act. after the tender on the 13th may the plaintiff proceeded with the suit at his risk. the only other question is as to costs between attorney and client given by the learned judge. in our opinion this suit was not cognizable by the small cause court and therefore section 22 of the act does not apply. an application under chapter vii is not a suit within the meaning of section 22.2. we must vary the decree accordingly. each party will bear his own costs of this appeal.3. wilson and king, attorneys for respondents.

Full Judgment

1. It appears that on 13th May 1892 there was a valid tender of rent, interest and costs, and that on 3rd November there was a payment into Court of the full amount due up to the 15th November. This being so, the defendants have brought themselves within the terms of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. After the tender on the 13th May the plaintiff proceeded with the suit at his risk. The only other question is as to costs between Attorney and client given by the learned Judge. In our opinion this suit was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court and therefore Section 22 of the Act does not apply. An application under chapter VII is not a suit within the meaning of Section 22.

2. We must vary the decree accordingly. Each party will bear his own costs of this appeal.

3. Wilson and King, Attorneys for Respondents.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial