Chennai Court January 1909 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.
Dasappalava Vs. Nanhakke and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.285
ORDER1. The question for decision in this case is, whether under the terms of the instrument, dated the 23rd December 1881, the plaintiff is now entitled to recover possession of the property. It is recited therein that the property is conditionally sold, for the sum of Rs. 462 received, to the defendants, who were to enjoy the property up to the 23rd December 1883. On that day, the plaintiff was entitled to pay the above sum with the value of improvements and recover possession from the defendants. Then follows the stipulation in these words, on which the defendants rely: 'If we fail to pay the principal amount of this sale deed and the value of all the improvements to be made by you till then, in one lump sum in 60 years from this date, i.e., on 30th of Margashira Bahula of the year Vishu, corresponding to 21st December 1941, and redeem the property of the conditional sale....' If not redeemed even on that date, the defendants' title became absolute. The contention on behalf of the d...
Deivasikamani Bhattar Vs. Subbiah Bhattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1131a
1. The plaintiff himself admits that at the date of the suit he was out of possession. The suit for a mere declaration and injunction is, therefore, barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Ganapathy Naicken Vs. Makki Keyi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.204
1. The question we now have to determine is whether the plaintiffs claim to redeem the mortgage of 1815 is barred by limitation. The District Judge has found that the bar of limitation is saved by admission. He relies on certain documents mentioned in his finding. If there had been no acknowledgment by the mortgagee, the claim would have become barred in 1875.2. The question must, therefore, be decided with reference to the law of limitation in force at that time. Article 148 of the Act of 1871 is in the same terms as Section 1, Clause 15, of the Act of 1859, which requires an acknowledgment in writing of the mortgagor's right of redemption signed by the mortgagee or some person claiming under him.3. The documents, relied on by the District Judge as evidence of acknowledgments, are Exhibits D.J. and II. Assuming that these documents are admissible as evidence, that acknowledgments have been made and signed, we are of opinion that they do not operate so as to prevent the suit from being...
Vaikunta Bhaktha Vs. Kunni Pakki Beari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.203
1. Taking the view most favourable to the plaintiffs, Kunham Haji was entitled to only a share; in the mortgaged properly at the date of Exhibit C. The question then is, whether the acknowledgment made by him in Exhibit C would be sufficient to give a new starting point for limitation under Section 1, Clause 15 of Act XIV of 1859. We are of opinion that it would not. Vide Bhogilal v. Amritlal 17 B.k 173, and Dharma v. Balmokand 18 A.k 458.2. The fact that Kunham Haji subsequently acquired the whole of the mortgaged property can make no difference. The acknowledgment to be effectual must have been a good acknowledgment at the date when it was made.3. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›