Chennai Court January 1927 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.
Sinni Ammal Vs. R. M. Pl. S. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad707
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, a Nattukottai Chetty, sued the mother of the deceased executant of a promissory note; and although the suit was dismissed in the first Court, it succeeded in appeal. The mother has now brought S. A. No. 1799 of 1923, and seeks to set aside its abatement caused by the original plaintiff's death after obtaining leave to excuse the delay. The plaintiff admittedly died on 29-1-1924 and the allegation in the affidavit is that when the second appeal was called on 4--3 - 1926 the appellant learnt for the first time that the respondent was dead. I heard this case partially in November last, and it was then acknowledged by the petitioner's vakil that in view of certain facts stated in the counter-affidavit, his client must be taken to have had knowledge of the death by virtue of a notice served in certain connected proceedings. Those proceedings arose out of a claim order which was allowed in favour of the defendant and led to a suit (C. S. No. 1062 of 1924 o...
Sinni Ammal Vs. R.M.P.S. Palaniappa Chettiar (Deceased) and His Legal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.118
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, a Nattukottai Chetty, sued the mother of the deceased executant of a promissory note and although the suit was dismissed in the first Court, it succeeded in appeal. The mother has brought now Second Appeal No. 1799 of 1923 and seeks to set aside its abatement caused by the original plaintiff's death after obtaining leave to excuse the delay. The plaintiff admittedly died on 29th January, 1924, and the allegation in the affidavit is that when the second appeal was called on 4th August, 1926, the appellant learnt for the first time that the respondent was dead. I heard this case partially in November last and it was then acknowledged by the petitioner's Vakil that in view of certain facts stated in the counter-affidavit, his client must be taken to have had knowledge of the death by virtue of a notice served in certain connected proceedings. Those proceedings arose out of a claim order which was allowed in favour of the defendant and led to a suit (O.S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›