Chennai Court August 1919 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.
Veerappa Chetty Vs. Ramaswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ442
1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 2nd defendant obtained a decree against the 1st defendant in the Temporary Suborinate Judge's Court at Ramnad on the 8th of April 1913. It was transferred for execution to the permanent Sub-Court and an application for attachment was made to that Court on the 18th of April 1913. On the 21st April 1913 the taluk in which the property sought to be attached was situate, was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Eamnad Sub-Court to that of the Sivaganga Sub-Court. Even after this transfer, the Ramnad Court issued an order of attachment on the 25th of June 1913. The property was sold on the 10th November 1913 and the 2nd defendant became the purchaser. The sale was confirmed on the 11th of December 1913. The judgment-debtor, the 1st defendant, did not object to the confirmation.2. Plaintiff, on the other hand, instituted a suit against the 1st defendant in the Sub-Court at Sivaganga and obtained a decree in December 1912. He attached the s...
Subramania Pattar Vs. Kattamballi Rama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ654
1. The finding of the Courts below is that a portion of the demised premises became unfit for paddy cultivation, because it was inundated by sea-water. The question therefore arises whether the tenant can plead as a defence to a suit for rent that he is entitled to proportionate abatement. There is not much authority on the subject. Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar contended that the principle of Section 108 clause B(e) of the Transfer Property Act was applicable, and that the only remedy open to the tenant was to have avoided the lease in toto. Mr. Lakshmana Rao for the Respondent argued that the Transfer of Property Act not being in terms applicable to agricultural tenancies, the application of the principle underlying the section must depend upon whether there are recognised preexisting rules on the subject which render the application of the principle inequitable. He drew our attention to Sheik Enayatoolah v. Sheik Elahibuksh (1864) (Supp). W.R. 42 and Salimullah v. Kaliprosonno (1915) Cri...
Odayamangalath Appunni Nair Vs. Isack Mackadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad272
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The original suit was instituted against one C.W. Fuller. In the course of the suit an application was made for his arrest. When he was brought before the Court the respondent before us agreed to stand surety for him. There upon, Fuller was released from custody. I shall refer to the terms of the bond and its legal effect later on. Subsequent to this, the surety asked the Court, at a time when Fuller was before it to conduct his case, that he should be relieved from his obligation to produce the defendant. The District Munsif did not apparently agree to this course. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to a consent decree which has now been put in execution. The surety, whose bond was not in terms discharged, now pleads that, by his producing the defendant before the Court and praying to be relieved from responsibility, the liability which he undertook under the bond was put an end to. There is a further contention that, as the parties to the suit in...
Veerappa Chetty Vs. Ramasami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad135
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The facts of the case are not; in dispute. The second defendant obtained a decree against the first defendant in the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court at Ramnad on 8th April 1913. It was transferred for execution to the permanent Sub-Court and an application for attachment was made to that Court on 18th April 1913. On 21st April 1913, the taluk in which the property sought to be attached was situated, was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ramnad Sub-Court to that of the Sivaganga Sub-Court. Even after this transfer, the Ramnad Court issued an order of attachment on 25th June 1913. The property was sold on 10th November 1913 and the second defendant became the purchaser. The sale was confirmed on 11th December 1913. The judgment debtor, the first defendant, did not object to the confirmation.2. Plaintiff, on the other hand, instituted a suit against the first defendant in the Sub-Court at Sivaganga and obtained a decree in December 1912. He attached the sa...
In Re: Subramania Ayyar Vs. in Re: Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad304
ORDER1. In this case the petitioner was convicted by a Bench-of five Magistrates, one of whom had not beard all the evidence. This vitiates the conviction-vide Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Hardwar Sing or Lall v. Khega Ojha I.L.R. (1893) Cal. 870 [followed in Queen-Empress v. Basappa I.L.R. (1895) Mad. 394] and Damri Thakur v. Bhowani Sahoo I.L.R. (1896) Cal, 194. The conviction and sentence are set -aside, and a retrial is ordered....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›