Chennai Court July 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.
(Mayyikaran Kalikakath) Kunhi MoidIn Vs. Kalandarakath Pakkar Kutty Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1094
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether Art. 142 or 144 applies to the facts of the case. The District Judge held that Art. 144, Limitation Act, applied and decreed the plaintiff's suit. It was recently held by Madhavan Nair, J., in Peria Jehangir Swami v. Esuf Sahib A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 834 that in a case like this the proper article to apply is 144. It is suggested by Mr. Krishna Menon that the authority of this decision is much shaken by the view held by Phillips, J., in another case reported in Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. Chokalinga Mudaliar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 181 Art. 142, Limitation Act applies to cases where there is an allegation of possession and dispossession. But where there is no such allegation and where it is not contended that there was dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, it would not be proper to apply Art. 142 in the case. In this case there is evidence that the defendant's possession was only within 12 years. The plaintiff's having titl...
Podapati Chendrayya Vs. Manduva Hanumayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad193
Devadoss, J.1. Appeal No. 1566 of 1923.--The plaintiff purchased some property under Ex. A from the defendants and he brought the suit with alternative prayers either to have the sale set aside or for a declaration that a certain encumbrance was not binding on him. The contention as put forward in the plaint is that he was not aware of the existence of the encumbrance at the time of the sale and that certain recitals in the document were introduced after the sale-deed was executed. Both the lower Courts have held against the plaintiff's contention and dismissed his suit. He has preferred this second appeal. The main question for consideration is: What is the meaning of the following clause:If with reference to the land now sold any disputes ever arise in future from any quarter, you shall hold yourself alone responsible for the loss or gain thereby.2. The contention of Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyer is that this clause refers only to title. If this clause is as regards title alone then the p...
Rajmbal Ammal Vs. Appasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.936
Ramesam, J.1. The District Munsif cannot set aside the ex parte' decree on grounds other than those mentioned in Order IX Rule 13. See Gadi Neelaveni v. Mavappareddigari Narayana Reddi 53 Ind. Cas. 817 : 43 M. 94 : 37 M.L.J 599 : 26 M.L.T. 377 : 10 L.W. 606 : (1020) M.W.N. 19. A ground of the kind referred to in Order IX, Rule 13 is alleged by the petitioner in the Court below but not considered by the District Munsif. It must now be taken that the 4th defendant did not appear on 20th February, 1925 [vide Manickam Pillai v. Mahudum Bathummal : AIR1925Mad21 ]. The District Munsif must consider the question whether he was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing on that day.2. The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the case remanded for disposal in the light of the above observations.3. The costs will abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›