Chennai Court September 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.
Tungama Shettiti and anr. Vs. Korattie Shettiti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.803
1. The District Judge has found that default was committed by the defendant in the payment of rent due in 1907 and 1908. The principle of the decision of this Court, in Narayana Naicker v. Vasudeva Bhattar 28 M.K 389 : 15 M.L.J. 208 that where the lease allows a period of grace for payment of rent, the forfeiture incurred by non-payment within the period of grace will not be relieved against, is not disputed. On the - findings, therefore, the second appeal cannot succeed.2. It is argued that, prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff did nothing to show that he intended to avail himself of the forfeiture. Assuming that it was necessary for the plaintiff to do so and that his institution of the suit would not be sufficient for the purpose, this question was not raised in either of the lower Courts or in the memorandum of second appeal here. It is quite possible that, if it had been raised at the proper time, the plaintiff might have had an answer to it. We are not, therefore, ...
Usuman Khan Vs. Nagalla Dasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.694
1. This is a suit for redemption. The 3rd defendant's father obtained a mortgage from the 1st defendant's husband in the year 1876. According to the terms of that mortgage, the amount of the debt was to be paid at the expiration of 8 years. Then it goes on to say. 'In case of the interest on the said principal accruing every year or the principal not being paid, you shall, immediately on the expiry of the stipulated period of 8 years, take possession of the said land, etc., and shall happily enjoy the same in succession from son to grandson and as long as the sun and moon last.' The mortgagee was not entitled to possession immediately according to the terms of the document, but he was to take possession of the property as owner after the time fixed for payment elapsed. On the 2nd July 1885, the 1st defendant's husband sent a petition, Exhibit I f, to the Tahsildar in order that patta for the land might be transferred to the 3rd defendant's father. The petition stated: 'I have put Nagal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›