Chennai Court May 1912 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.
Rama Brahmam and ors. Vs. Venkatanarasu Puntulul and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ131
1. The question raised in the Second Appeal is whether this is a suit for sale by a mortgagee within the meaning of that term as used in Section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, which gives mortgagees in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay and the United Provinces and certain other territories mentioned in the second schedule among other things a further term of two years from the passing of the Act in which to sue. The reason for this legislation is, as is well-known, that many mortgagees had been misled by the decisions of the Courts as to the effect of the construction of Article 147 in the Limitation Act of 1877 into believing that the period of limitation for suits on their mortgagees, was sixty years under Article 147, whereas according to the decision of the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivarsa Pillai I.L.R. (1907) M. 426 it was only twelve years under Article 132. The lower courts have decided that the instrument sued on is not a mortgage but a charge on the ...
Nanjappa Vs. Nanjappa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ290
1. These are thres connected appeals. The Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911 have been fully argued before us. The decision in C.M.A. No. 228 of 1910 naturally follows from the conclusions, we have arrived at in the two former Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911.2. The facts are somewhat complicated; but for the purpose of our decision, might be shortly stated thus.3. Nanja Rao as plaintiff brought Suit No. 9 of 1907 in the Salem Sub-Court for recovery of the impartible Palayapet of Berikai and its appurtenant moveable and immoveable properties against the rival claimant Puttusawmi and the Court of Wards who supported Puttusawmi. That suit afterwards became O.S. No. 2 of 1908 on the file of the District Court of Salem. Puttusawmi (the 1st defendant) was himself appointed as Receiver pending the disposal of this Suit No. 2 of 1908 Two sureties deposited Rs. 30,000 in Court as security for Puttusawmi's proper management as Receiver.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff (Nanja Rao) the...
Sri Rajah Saheb Dostan Sri Raja Ravu Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.534
1. In view of the Full Bench decision in Gorakala Kanakaiya v. Janardha Padhai (1910) M.W.N. 841 this second appeal must be dismissed, but we make no order as to costs in this Court.2. The memorandum of objections is also dismissed without costs....
Rama Brahmam and ors. Vs. Venkatanarsu Puntulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.209
1. The question raised in the second appeal is whether this is a suit for sale by a mortgagee within the meaning of that term as used in Section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, which gives mortgagees in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, and the United Provinces and certain other territories mentioned in the second Schedule among other things a further term of two years from the passing of the Act' in which to sue. The reason for this legislation is, as is well known, that many mortgagees had been misled by the decisions of the Courts as to the effect of the construction of Article 147 in the Limitation Act of 1877 into believing that the period of limitation for suits on their mortgages was sixty years under Article 147, whereas, according to the decision of the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai 6 C.L.J. 379 it was only twelve years under Article 132. The lower Courts have decided that the instrument sued on is not a mortgage but a charge, on the author...
Kuttuva N. Letchumana Bagavathar Vs. Thoppai L. Venkatramaier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.234
1. This is a case of transfer by a joint sub-lessee of his interest in the sublease. The transfer is of the 'umari plants now standing or that may hereafter form in the undermentioned villages,' and was, therefore, a transfer of an interest in immoveable property according to the decision in Seeni Chettiar v. Santhanathan Chettiar 20 M.l 58. Therefore, it can only be made by a registered instrument executed by the transferor. The recent decision in Syed Ajam Sahib v. Ananthanarayana Iyer 35 M.l 95 : 8 M.L.T. 437 : 8 Ind. Cas. 668 : 1 M.W.N. 766 : 21 M.L.J. 202 does not apply as the document before us is not a lease, and we are not prepared to extend it. We allow the appeal and restore the decree of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court....
Pichammal Vs. A. Ponnambala Bhatter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.326
1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge has rightly held that the defendants were precluded, by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, from proving the oral agreement set up by the 1st defendant, whereby the plaintiff is said to have agreed in substance to return the sale-deed, Exhibit A, and to relinquish his rights thereunder. The learned Vakil for the appellant argues that, in spite of this provision of law, the plaintiff is estopped, under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, from [prosecuting the present suit. But, in order to set up any plea of estoppel, the party raising it must first prove the declaration, act or omission on which it is based, and, in the present case, Section 92 stands in his way. We cannot accede to the suggestion that Section 92 must be read subject to Section 115.2. We may also observe that, to allow appellant's contention would be to run counter to the spirit of the rulings in Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 29 M.P 336 : 1 M.L.T. 153 : 16 M.L.J. 39...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›