Chennai Court April 1916 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.
In Re: Savarimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.646
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. This case (Calendar Case No. 716 of 1915) on the file of the 2nd class Magistrate of Dindigul was tried by Mr. D.K. Venkateswara Aiyar who heard all the evidence and adjourned it to 30th November 1915 for judgment. He also wrote and signed a judgment adding the date (30th November 1915), but did not pronounce it as, when the case was called on 30th November 1915, one of the three accused was absent. The case was, therefore, adjourned to secure the attendance of this man. On 8th December 1915, all the accused appeared; but by that time Mr. Venkateswara Aiyar had been succeeded by Mr. N. Subramania Aiyar. The accused then demanded a de novo enquiry under Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code: and Mr. Subramania Aiyar, apparently feeling doubts as to whether he would in such circumstances be justified in pronouncing his predecessor's judgment, acceded to their demand.2. The District Magistrate refers the case under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code ...
C.B. Swami Chetty Vs. S.T. Ethirajulu Nayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad547
John Wallis, C.J.1. Exhibits V and VI both contain agreements about effecting an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds Similar documents have been held in England to affect land and require registration under the statute of 7 Anne relating to Middlesex in Moore v. Culverhouse (1860) 27 Beav. 639; s.c. 54 E. R. 254, Neve v. Pennel (1863) 2 H. & M. 170. Kedarnath v. Shamloll Khettry (1873) 11 B.L.R. 405 is distinguishable. The learned Judge was therefore right in holding that Exhibits V and VI required registration and were inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, even as regards the stipulation for compound interest on the equitable mortgages.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Phillips, J.3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether Exhibits V and VI are admissible in evidence although they are not registered. Plaintiffs bad effected an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds with a third party and then arranged with the defendant to pay off this m...
The Rajah of Vizayanagaram, Represented by His Mukyar G. Appayya Pantu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.480
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The case is one of first impression, but as it has been fully argued, I do not think it necessary to reserve judgment. The facts found are that the property in dispute was attached as belonging to the holding of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who had committed default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff claimed the property as his own and contended that, as no arrears were due from him, the property should not be sold.2. Notwithstanding the objection, the property was about to be sold, when the plaintiff paid the arrears claimed to be due under protest. In this suit, he sues for the money which he was thus compelled to pay. The landlord is the first defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants who claimed the property against the plaintiff.3. The defences were that the land sought to be sold really belonged to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Courts below held that the land belonged to the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›