Chennai Court March 1929 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.
Ratna Mudaliar Vs. Ellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad792
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit was brought on the footing of a mortgage-bond Ex. A, dated 26th June 1916, to recover the money due under it. It was executed by five persons. They are: the husband of defendant 1, defendant 2 and defendants 3, 4 and 5. Defendants 6 to 11 are defendant 3's sons and 12 to 17 are defendant 4's sons. The suit is contested by defendants 6 to 17 on the ground that the mortgage was executed for purposes not binding on the sons. The Subordinate Judge gave partial effect to this plea and the plaintiff appeals.2. All the contesting defendants 6, 7, 12 and 13 were born at the time of the mortgage and the other defendants were not in existence at the time of the mortgage. They would be bound by the mortgage document in any event. But apart from this when we examine the purposes for which Ex. A was executed we find that it was executed for two items, one item for Rs. 800 due on a promissory note and the other item for Rs. 1,500 and the necessit...
Kutiyan Vs. Vaithilinga Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad343
Pandalai, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge on an application by respondents 1 and 2 (appellants in his Court) made an order on 29th February 1928, allowing further evidence to be taken on their behalf, i.e., to re-call P.W. 3 in order to get his accounts produced and to examine three new witnesses who had not been examined at all at the trial. Immediately after this order the petitioner (respondent 1 in the lower Court) by his lawyer asked that if additional evidence was to be allowed to respondents 1 and 2, he also might be allowed to adduce further evidence to rebut that evidence. This also the learned Judge allowed by another order but without asking the petitioner or knowing from him what evidence he proposed to tender.2. These petitions are directed against the first of the two above orders on which the second also depends. It is now settled that the appellate Court is empowered on the application of a party for any substantial cause to permit additional evidence to be taken und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›