Chennai Court December 1928 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.
Marina Ammayi Vs. (Changanti) Sundayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad432; 117Ind.Cas.124; 87Ind.Cas.714
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the foot of a mortgage bond dated 5th December 1906 (Ex. A) executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Kamma woman aged 55. According to the terms of the mortgage bond Rs. 6,000 were borrowed and they were to be repaid in six annual instalments of Rs. 1,000 each on the first April of each year beginning with 1908 and ending with 1913. The rate of interest in the first instance is 12 per cent per annum but the deed provides that if two consecutive instalments remained unpaid the entire principal and interest outstanding due at the time shall, without reference to future instalments, be recoverable together with interest thereon at 15 per cent per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. The mortgaged property comprises 763 acres in different villages in the East Godaveri District. By a sale-deed dated 17th March 1908 (Ex. B) the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption in 757 acres and one...
C. Doraiswamy Mudali Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad251
1. The judgment of the lower Court dismissing plaintiff's suit is based on a wholly erroneous view of law. The learned Judge holds that the fact thatthe contract was broken by defendant long before the date of the assignment in plaintiff's favourdeprives him of the normal right of an assignee of a contract for specific performance to sue for specific performance, and reduces his legal right to a 'mere right to sue,' which is not transferable. The ruling in Venkateswara Aiyar v. Raman Nambudri [1916] 3 M.L.W. 435 which the learned Judge quotes, is, as correctly quoted by him to the opposite effect, viz.,that the term a 'mere right to sue' is only applicable where the specific enforcement of the contract cannot be obtained.2. We can hardly conceive that the learned Judge meant to lay down that the mere refusal, however, often it may be repeated, by a party to perform a contract or a mere denial of the existence of the contract deprives the other party of the right to sue for specific per...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›