Chennai Court August 1923 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.
Nadepena Appamma and ors. Vs. Saripalli Chinnaveadu (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad292; 79Ind.Cas.510; (1923)45MLJ667
Ramesam, J.1. The facts are stated by my learned brothers. It is sufficient to add that defendants 1 to 4 represent the original mortgagee who is dead and defendants 5 to 8 are their relations and friends who got into possession of the suit property within 12 years prior to suit.2. It is true that the unregistered deed of mortgage mentioned in the plaint is inadmissible in evidence to prove the mortgage. It is also true that a mortgage of immoveable property to secure a sum of Rs. 100 or upwards cannot be created otherwise than by a registered deed. There is therefore no mortgage of 1902 to redeem.3. But it does not follow that there was not, at the date of plaint, the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. It is too narrow reading of the plaint which is a bare narration of the facts, to construe it as seeking to redeem only a mortgage of 1902 and no other. The decision in Krishna Pillai v. Rangaswami Pillai I.L.R. (1895) M. 462 : 5 M.L.J. 187 ...
Sri Rajah Dantuluri Devi Prasada Satyanarayana Veerabhadra Venkata Lak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ12
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit arising out of a mortgage effected on the 15th April 1896 on the Gundepalli Estate. The suit on the mortgage itself was numbered as O.S. No. 25 of 1910, and will be referred to in this judgment by that designation. We are also concerned with a later mortgage but an earlier suit (O.S. No. 21 of 1910) relating to the same property. The plaintiff in this suit and the defendants 1, 2 and 3 belong to the same family i. e., the family originally owning the Gundepalli estate. 5th defendant is the decree-holder both in O.S. No. 25 of 1910 and O.S. 21 of 1910. 6th defendant is alleged to be the stranger auction-purchaser of the mortgaged property in O.S. No. 25 of 1910. So, as matters stand at present, as to 25 of 1910, 6th defendant is the purchaser from the decree-holder, 5th defendant; in O.S. No. 21 of 1910 5th defendant has obtained a decree but the properties remained unsold. The suit from which this appeal arises is O.S. No. 11 of 1916 in the Temporary Subordi...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Satyanarayana Varaprasada Rao Bahadur Zemindar G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.504; (1924)46MLJ117
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against an order passed by one of us sitting as a single Judge, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. That order confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed in this Court. The present petitioner, who was the petitioner in the Revision Petition has applied to us to grant him leave to appeal to the Privy Council.2. A preliminary objection is taken to this application on the ground that Section 111, C.P.C. bars any such application. S. in says notwithstanding anything contained in Section 109 no appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council among other things (a) from the decree or order of one Judge of a High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. This is manifestly an application for an appeal from such an order. It is difficult to see how the petitioner can escape the obstacle placed in his way by this...
Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. Maruda Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.761
1. In Original Suit No. 346 of 1904 the present appellant obtained a decree-against one Singaravelu Pillai who was the first defendant in the suit and died after judgment. His minor son, who was second defendant in the suit, was first represented by the present respondent who is first defendant's an divided brother, as his guardian ad litem. That decree was attempted to be executed in E.P.R. No. 883 of 1917 and, on the 6th of March 1918, it was held by the district Munsif of Kumbakonam in execution that the execution petition was barred by limitation and it was dismissed. While that execution petition Was pending the third defendant, the respondent in these proceedings, who was made a party to the execution application as one of the legal representatives of the first defendant, came forward with an application, E.A. No. 305 of 1918, to set aside the order making him a legal representative of the deceased first defendant and, at the same time, asking that the attachment of a portion of ...
Candaswamy Chettiar Vs. Maruda Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad145
1. In O.S. No. 346 of 1904, the present appellant obtained a decree against one Singaravelu Piliai, who was the 1st defendant in the suit and died after judgment. His minor son who was 2nd defendant in the suit, was first represented by the present respondent, who is 1st defendant's undivided brother, as his guardian ad litem. That decree was attempted to be executed in E.P.R. No. 885 of 1917 and, on the 6th of March, 1918, it was held by the District Munsif of Kumakonam, in execution, that the execution petition was barred by limitation and it was dismissed. While that execution petition was pending, the 3rd defendant, the respondent in these proceedings, who was made a party to the execution application, as one of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, came forward with an application, E.A. No. 305 of 1918, to set aside the order making him a legal representative of the deceased 1st defendant and at the same time asking that the attachment of a portion of the property should...
Sri Rajah Dantuluri Devi Prasada Satyanarayana Veerabhadra Venkata Lak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad281
Odgers, J. 1. This is a suit arising out of a mortgage effected on the 15th April, 1896, on the Gundepalli Estate. The suit on the mortgage itself was numbered as O.S. No. 25 of 1910, and will referred to in this judgment by that designation. We are also concerned with a later mortgage but an earlier suit (O.S. No. 21 of 1910) relating to the same property. The plaintiff in this suit and the defendants 1, 2 and 3 belong to the same family, i.e., the family originally owning the Gundepalli Estate. 5th defendant is the decree-holder both in O.S. No. 25 of 1910 and O.S. No. 21 of 1910. 6th defendant is alleged to be the stranger auction-purchaser of the mortgaged property in O.S. No. 25 of 1910. So, as matters stand at present, as to 25 of 1910, 6th defendant is the purchaser from the decree-holder, 5th defendant; in O.S. No. 21 of 1910, 5th defendant has obtained a decree but the properties remained unsold. The suit from which this appeal arises is O.S. No. 11 of 1916 in the Temporary Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›