Chennai Court November 1926 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.
C. Sundarammal Vs. Arunachala Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1138
Curgenven, J.1. The respondent in this case purchased certain property from the husband and son of one Nagammal who is the appellant's (plaintiff's) mother. The property really belonged not to the vendors but to Nagammal and the question is whether the purchasers are entitled to the benefit of the provisions Section 41, T. P. Act. It is not disputed that they bought in good faith, and the only point for consideration is whether in so doing they exercised reasonable care. Admittedly, whatever else they did, they failed to scrutinize the title-deeds., It is.argued on behalf of the appellant that they failed to exercise reasonable care I do not think that in this country the argument in this unqualified form can be accepted. It is true that in certain Calcutta cases Ram Charan Das v. Joy Ram Majhi 17 C. W. N. 100 and Badha Mudhali v. Kalpataru 17 C. L. J. 209 the English rule has been quoted that an omission to call for title-deeds constitutes constructive notice. But it is obvious that a...
S.M.S. Gopal Aiyer Vs. the Right Hon'able the Secretary of State for I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.346
Waller, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff who seeks to recover a sum of money levied from him by way of water cess. His suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed on appeal. The case is a perfectly simple one. The main question at issue was whether the plaintiff had used the water of a particular channel, which he denied having done. Both parties went to trial on the mutual assumption that this channel was a surplus channel and on an admission of the plaintiff that his source of irrigation was another channel called Chinnamadai. The real question was, therefore, as I have already observed, whether the plaintiff had used the water of the surplus channel. The Munsif allowed himself to be misled to the extent of finding that the channel was not a surplus channel at, all and that the real issue in the case was misleading and unnecessary. Matters were put right by the lower Appellate Court. [A] Mr. Subramania Iyer argues that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in interpreting the...
P. Sundarammal Vs. Arunachala Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.665
Curgenven, J.1. The respondent in this case purchased certain property from the husband and son of one Nagammal, who is the appellant's (plaintiff's) mother. The property really belonged not to the vendors but to Nagammal, and the question is whether the purchasers are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not disputed that they bought in good faith, and the only point for consideration is whether in so doing they exercised reasonable care. Admittedly, whatever else they did, they failed to scrutinize the title-deeds. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that this is conclusive evidence that they failed to exercise reasonable care. I do not think that in this country the argument in this unqualified form can be accepted. It is true that in certain Calcutta cases, Ram Charan Das v. Joy Ram Majhi 16 Ind. Cas. 825 : 16 Cri.L.J. 185 : 17 C.W.N. 100 and Radha Madhab Paikara v. Kalpataru Roy 16 Ind. Cas. 811 : 17 Cri.L.J. 209, the E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›