Chennai Court January 1924 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.
S. Sundararamiah and ors. Vs. T. Venkatasubbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad619
Krishnan, J.1. In this suit the competition is between the purchasers of the plaint property in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the plaintiffs and the purchasers in a rent sale in execution of a rent decree which the Zamindar had obtained against the pattadar of the lands in question. The father of the plaintiffs had obtained on this property a mortgage in 1897 evidenced by Ex. A. In 1909 the amount due under that mortgage came to about Rs. 508 and a new mortgage was then taken for a part of it Rs. 300 which was the principal of the old mortgage, and that deed is Ex. B. That deed was executed, as is evidenced by its date, after the passing of the Estates Land Act. That deed says that it is taken for Rs. 300 due under the previous deed, and there is a statement that Rs. 208 are still due under the old deed. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the second of these deeds, Ex. B, and obtained a decree and brought the property to sale and purchased it themselves. But before they did ...
Ramani Alias Venkatramani and ors. Vs. M. Narayanaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad697
Odgers, J.1. In this case the suit was on a usufructuary mortgage bond executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant being the father of defendants 2, 3 and 4. The last two are the appellants before us. The 3rd and 4th defendants who are undivided members of a joint Hindu family which owns apparently large properties, hare brought the suit to set aside that suit mortgage alleging inter alia that the document was only intended to operate if, on taking the accounts between the defendants and the plaintiff, any amount was found due from the latter to the former. The matter before us arises directly out of the petition for the appointment of a receiver in the Mayavaram Sub-Court in which the suit had been instituted. The suit was numbered 98 of 1922. Arguments were heard on the 19th September, 1923, the petition was adjourned for orders to the 21st September. For various reasons, the order was not pronounced till the 2nd October, 1923, when the plaintiff was ap...
Abdul Jaffar Sahib and ors. Vs. K. Venugopal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad708
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for dissolution of partnership, for the taking of accounts and for recovery of money due to him as profits. It would appear that the plaintiff, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and the 1st defendant's father had a partnership, in bamboo trade from 1912 to 1913. The 1st defendant's father died in that year and that of course in law amounted to a dissolution of the partnership. Nevertheless the same bamboo trade was carried on by the 2nd and 3rd defendants along with 1st defendant who was the son of the deceased' man and plaintiff was also added as a partner. It is a question in this case whether the plaintiff came in as a partner or only as a sub-partner of defendants 1 and 3 alone. The Subordinate Judge has found that in taking the plaintiff into the firm of defendants 1 to 3, the defendants 1 and 3 who alone entered into the contract with the plaintiff under Ex. A really acted on behalf of the firm including the 2nd defendant, an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›