Chennai Court February 1915 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.
Ramasami Moopan Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ338
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim that he has asubsisting usufructuary mortgage on the properties referred to in the plaint: or whether the 2nd defendant can claim that he has acquired not only the equity of redemption but also the mortgagee's interest. The decision of this question depends upon whether the mortgagee's interest in the property was validly attached and sold in execution or whether the attachment was invalid. After the alleged attachment of the mortgagee's interest upon which the defendant relies the plaintiff paid off the mortgage amount and purported to redeem the property. The plaintiff claims that the redemption was valid as the attachment was invalid; and the defendant claims that the alleged redemption was void under Section 64 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, as the property had been attached prior to the alleged redemption.2. The learned pleader for the defendant relied up on the terms of Section 64 of the ne...
Rajah Mulrazzu Lakshmi Venkiah Amma Rao Bahadur Vs. the Official Assig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ403
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal by the creditor whose notice of motion was dismissed by Mr. Justice Bakewell in the exercise of Insolvency jurisdiction. The creditor (appellant) contended, that he was entitled not merely to get a rateable distribution along with the other creditors but that he was entitled to get the full amount due to him by the insolvent in preference to the other creditors of the insolvent (from and out of the insolvents estate) inasmuch as he gave 45 sovereigns and 26 1/2 pagodas weight of gold for the specific purpose of making a gold oddiyanam and 4 mettus by working the specific gold in the said sovereigns and the said gold bar and as the relation between the insolvent and himself was one of bailment and not that of creditor and debtor in an ordinary loan transaction.2. The learned Judge found (a) that the insolvent did become bailee of the specific gold given to him as metal and that there was not the relation of ordinary creditor and debtor created (by t...
C.V. Venugopal Mudali Vs. C. Venkatasubbiah Chetty and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad883; (1916)ILR39Mad1196
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought on the original aide of the High Court for the establishment of the plaintiff's right to attach the plaint properties in execution of the decree which the plaintiff had obtained against the first defendant in Original Suit No. 13 of 1905. The second defendant put in a claim petition when the properties were attached by the plaintiff in execution of that decree on the allegation that the properties did not belong to the first defendant (the judgment-debtor) but to his wife (the third defendant) and that the second defendant had a mortgage right over the properties, the mortgage having been created by the third defendant in favour of the second defendant's transferor. His (second defendant's) claim petition was allowed in August 1909 by a single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side. The plaintiff (the decree-holder) appealed against that order and that order was confirmed by a Division Bench of t...
Mala Makalakati Subbadu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ381
ORDERSpencer, J.1. It is contended that in this case there has been a misjoinder of charges and I find the contention to be sound.2. It appears that house breaking and theft occurred in two villages 4 miles apart on two successive nights. The 1st accused was charged with house breaking by night and theft, and the 2nd accused, his concubine, was charged with house breaking by night and theft or in the alternative with receiving Stolen property.3. Seeing that no witnesses came forward to say that they had seen the thieves in the act of committing the offences of house breaking and theft it is not clear why the male prisoner was not also charged in the alternative under Sections 457 and 380 or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, but perhaps, the Magistrate may have considered that the female prisoner was less likely to have taken an active part in the theft and house breaking.4. Be this as it may, there is nothing to suggest that the breaking and theft at Nallapu Reddi Pallai was part o...
The South Indian Export Co., Ltd. Vs. A. Condiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1066; 29Ind.Cas.712
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant (the South Indian Export Company, Limited) is the appellant. The only question in this case is whether Theperumal Chetty and Company, for whom the plaintiff stood surety with, the South Indian Export Company, Limited, was guilty of breaches of the series of contracts (which are set out in the plaint as having taken place between the two Companies) or whether the South Indian Export Company, Limited, was guilty of the breaches. If the South Indian Export Company, Limited, committed the breaches, then the learned Judge's judgment ought to be upheld. If it is the other way, the judgment has to be set aside and the suit has to be dismissed.2. So far as I could understand the plaint, it is based upon the allegations that Theperumal Chetty would have been justified in repudiating the contracts and putting an end to the same (see paragraph 9 of the plaint) had he known some facts of which he was ignorant, and that he must be treated as having repudiated and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›