Chennai Court December 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.
Mahammad Sultan Mohideen Ahmed Anseri Vs. Amthul Jalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1102
Devadoss, J.1. The father of plaintiff and defendant purchased some property under Ex. 1 on 15th October 1897. It appears from the original sale-deed that in the preamable the names of both the plaintiff and defendant were entered and in the body of the document it was recited that Schedule A properties were to go to the plaintiff and Schedule B properties were to go to the defendant but when it was taken for registration the Sub-registrar seems to have objected to the recitals that the Schs. A and B should be separately enjoyed by the two vendees and thereupon clauses relating to the separate enjoyment of the two schedules were scored out. The father, in pursuance of his intention that the plaintiff should enjoy one schedule and the defendant the other, seems to have asked the municipal authorities to register the two schedules in the separate names of the plaintiff and defendant. The present contention of the appellant is, that, inasmuch as the sale deed was taken in the joint names ...
Kandasami Chettiar Vs. Jayapandia Athither Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.78
1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin refusing to pass a final decree in favour of the appellant. The main ground upon which the learned District Judge proceeded is that the Official Receiver was not made a parry to the mortgage suit and, therefore, the decree passed in appellant's favour is not a valid decree. The preliminary decree was passed in appellant's favour on 20th September, 1915. The mortgagor was adjudicated an insolvent on 2nd August, 1915. Even if the appellant was aware of the adjudication he is not bound under the law to make the Official Receiver to come on record if he wished to contest the suit. What the appellant did was to make the Official Receiver a party at a later stage and the Official Receiver does not seem to have taken any action in the matter. In the case of a mortgagee who has filed a suit against his mortgagor the mere fact that the mortgagor becomes an insolvent ...
A. Srinivasalu Chetti Vs. Palamkula Guraviah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.655
1. The facts are these Five persons brought a suit to establish their right to a site and obtained a decree. The defendant appealed. His appeal succeeded on 28th October, 1919, but before that date, on 2nd September, 1918, the 2nd plaintiff died. His name, however, continued on the record and the appeal was disposed of without his legal representatives having been added. The other plaintiffs and his legal representatives, who were added as parties by the High Court, preferred a second appeal, on which the High Court passed the following judgment:There being a question whether the 2nd plaintiff was not dead when the appeal was heard, both sides agree that the decree should be set aside and the appeal remanded for disposal according to law.2. This judgment was delivered on 19th November, 1920. On 29th March, 1924, the defendant filed an application to set aside the abatement. This application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. Appeal against order No. 419 is an appeal against his ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›