Natesa Udayan Vs. Annasami Udayan and ors.

Natesa Udayan vs Annasami Udayan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 29, 1916

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/813002

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/813002
Court: Chennai
Judge: Oldfield and ;Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 29, 1916
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Schedule I, Article 182 - Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 69--Mortgage--decree--Execution--Decree absolute, prayer for, absent in application--Prayer for sale, if implies prayer for making decree absolute. -

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Natesa Udayan

Respondent

Annasami Udayan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Balaji Rao v. Harirama Chetty
Reported In: 34Ind.Cas.756

Excerpt

limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182 - transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 69--mortgage--decree--execution--decree absolute, prayer for, absent in application--prayer for sale, if implies prayer for making decree absolute. - 1. the judgment under appeal is in accordance with a current of decisions of this court [singaravelu pillai v. santhana krishna mudaliar 31 ind. cas. 9 mohammad husain saib v. abdul kareem saib 29 ind cas. 237 and balaji rao v. harirama chetty 21 ind. cas. 318 which, no doubt, are not yet included in the authorised reports, but in which we concur. the appeal against appellate order is, therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The judgment under appeal is in accordance with a current of decisions of this Court [Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishna Mudaliar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 Mohammad Husain Saib v. Abdul Kareem Saib 29 Ind Cas. 237 and Balaji Rao v. Harirama Chetty 21 Ind. Cas. 318 which, no doubt, are not yet included in the authorised reports, but in which we concur. The appeal against appellate order is, therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Natesa Udayan vs Annasami Udayan and ors. Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge Oldfield and ;Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ.

Miscellaneous