Chennai Court December 1918 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.
Periakaruppa Mukkandan and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.616; (1919)36MLJ320
John Wallis, C.J.1. There has been some discussion as to the meaning of the words 'liability to pay enhanced rent on an alleged contract to pay' in the question referred to us. Whether or not these words are wide enough to cover, not only a fresh contract enhancing the rent already payable under a binding contract, but also an increased demand under an original contract to pay rent at rates varying with the crops, a well-known kind of tenancy recognised in Section 29 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, which may well have become payable under a contract to substitute money rents for the old sharing system of the country, the possibility of there having been a contract of either kind, ought in my opinion to be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to presume a contract supported by consideration. That an implied contract within the meaning of Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act, 1865, to pay rent at a certain rate may be inferred from payments for a long series of years ...
Gantasola Jagannadhan and ors. Vs. Thatavarthi Ramabrahmam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1918
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.753
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The decree holder and the Court auction-purchasers are the appellants before us.2. The application under Order XXI, Rule 89, to the lower Court to set aside the Court auction sale was made jointly by the judgment debtors and persons who purchased the property from them privately after the Court auction sale.3. The short question for decision in this case is whether a private purchaser from the judgment-debtor after the date of the Court auction sale but before the Court auction sale was confirmed can apply under Order XXI, Rule 89, (old Section 310-A) to have the Court auction sale set aside and if he cannot come in, can the judgment debtor do so.4. The question may also be formulated in extenso as four separate questions thus :1. Does such a private purchaser come within the meaning of the expression 'person owning such property' in Order XXI, Rule 89? In other words, does the fact of the existence of the unconfirmed Court auction sale prevent the subsequent priva...
A.C. Ganapathiya Pillai and anr. Vs. Gopala Aiyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.563
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The decree-holders are the appellants. Their application was under Section 89 of Act IV of 1882 for an order absolute. The application was made in 1914 within three years of a previous application of December 1911 for the same relief, the right to obtain that relief under the decree of December 190S having accrued in Marsh 1909. That application was dismissed by the Munsif on the ground?: (a) that Article 181 (old Article 178) applied to the application for an order absolute under the ruling in Rungiah Goundan & Co. v. Nantappa Row 26 M.P 780 : 13 M.L.J. 412; 23 Ind. Cas. 649 : 16 Bom. L.R. 395 : 18 C.W.N. 963 : 19 C.L.J. 626 : 27 M.L.J. 17 : (1914) M.W.N. 485 : 16 M.L.L. 44 : 1 L.W. 483 that, therefore, it was barred as made after three years from March 1909;(b) that the decree-holders had no right to apply for an order absolute but could apply only for the passing of a final decree according to the provisions of the new Civil Procedure Code.(c) The District Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›