Chennai Court April 1920 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.
Samipandia Tevar and Twenty-two ors. Vs. Muhomed Abdul Kadir Marakayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad835
Oldfield, J.1. The first question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, mortgagors, are entitled to execute their decree for redemption, by asking the Court to sell the mortgaged property. It is prima facie concluded in their favour by Govinda Targan v. Veeran I.L.R.(1913) , Mad., 32, since we have been shown no case in which that decision has been doubted and in Venkatachalam Pattar v. Ramayyar C.M.A., 99 of 1915 (unreported.) it has been followed, and since Mr. Ananthakrishna Ayyar for defendants has declined to argue against its correctness. He has relied only on the fact that the decree provides for a sale at the instance only of the mortgagee. But that appears to have been the case also in the decision referred to. This objection to the order under appeal must therefore be disallowed.2. The more important contention before us is, however that the plaintiffs' application for execution was made too late; and certainly it was so unless time ran, as they contend, from the d...
Kuppuswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ375
1. The Lower Appellate Court held that the Suit was barred, because, a previous decree having to be set aside, before relief could be given, Article 144, Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable.2. Appellants contend that the previous decree need not be set aside, being a nullity, in as much as it was obtained against them as minors with their mother as a guardian ad litem; and, her interest in the litigation being adverse to theirs, she was not competent to represent them with reference to Order 32, Rule 4(1) proviso. Assuming, but not deciding that the mother had any sort of adverse interest, we are not prepared to hold that she was so wholly disqualified that her representation must be treated as no representation and the decree must be regarded as null and need not be set aside on proof of fraud or otherwise. No authority cited for appellants goes that length. Baijnath Rai v. Dharam Deo Tiwari I.L.R. (1916) All 315 has been relied on. But in it the question was not whether...
Kandasami Chetty Vs. Ramalinga Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.906
1. The judgment of the District Munsif under revision is in these terms, 'Point; Is the plaint claim true? I find the plaint claim true.' The question for consideration is whether this is a judgment which should be accepted by this Court. Mr. Srinivasagopala Chariar, who appeared for the respondent, has drawn my attention to the language of Order XX, Rule 4 Clauses (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and contended that, in a Small Cause suit, the Judge is not bound to give reasons for his decision. He is supported by the Calcutta High Court in Protap Chandra Dutt v. Abhimanini Surini 48 Ind. Cas. 752 . On the other hand, in Malik Rahmat v. Shiva Prasad 13 A. 533 Mr. Justice Mahmood and in Bai Jasoda v. Bamansha 23 B. 334 one of the Judges of the Bench examined the materials placed before them to find out whether the Small Cause Judge had applied his mind to the consideration of the evidence adduced before him. I may at once say, with reference to the observations contained in the j...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›