Chennai Court August 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.
Neelakanta Rao and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.733
1. The plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Ramachandra Ekanadha brought this action to recover certain immoveable property, the subject of this appeal, sold by Jamna Boi, the widow of the last male owner. Ramachandra Ekanadha, the last male owner, died in 1833 leaving his widow Jamna Boi and a daughter Soma Boi, then an infant of two years or thereabouts. The sale was made to six persons in equal shares by six separate sale-deeds on the 4th October 1860. The 10th defendant, the principal contesting defendant (whom we shall hereafter call the defendant) has now acquired the whole of the properties now in dispute through several intermediate sales from the alienees of the widow. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in respect of these items on the ground that the sales were made by the widow to get money to pay debts borrowed by her for the expenses of the marriage of her daughter and for the cultivation expenses of some of her lands whi...
Bhuvaragha Iyengar Vs. Natesa Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1302; 37Ind.Cas.768
Spencer, J.1. The difficulties which a purchaser of property must have in proving that alienations made some fifty years ago by a Hindu widow were for necessary purposes, have in arguing this appeal been vividly represented to us. But in the present case I must accept the findings of the lower Courts for the reasons given by them. The appellant did not succeed in proving the minimum required in such cases. The Consideration for Exhibit VI is four prior debts and a sum of ready cash received by Valu Ammal for her own use. One of these debts was according to the recital of Exhibit VI-D incurred by the widow for paying the arrears of kist and for meeting her private expenses. Another was incurred for permanently settling the claim of a maintenance holder of her husband's family, A third was borrowed for a purpose unspecified and the fourth was due upon a compromise decree obtained by the decree-holder of a usufructuary mortgage whose rights of possession she invaded.2. It has not been sho...
Mathu K.R.V. Arunachalam Chetty and ors. Vs. M.R.R.M. Murugappa Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.516
1. At first we were inclined to doubt if the Court had power at the instance of a mortgagee to prescribe by its decree the order in which the mortgaged properties are to be sold; but after hearing a full argument from Mr. Rangachariar, we think the Court had the power to do so.2. The mortgagee is ordinarily entitled to realise the debt due to him by proceeding against the whole or any of the parcels of land mortgaged to him. It is conceded by Mr. Ananthakrishna Iyer that by virtue of this right the mortgagee in execution of a mortgage decree can ask for the sale of the properties included in the mortgage in any order he chooses. If he can do that, we are unable to find any principle which prevents him from claiming and the Court from granting that relief, at the trial, by the decree. It may be, and indeed it was, admitted that the Court has power to control this right of the mortgagee to prevent a fraudulent or unconscionable use of it and to adjust the equities of persons who have bon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›