Chennai Court December 1944 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.
Bellamkonda Subbiah Vs. Jetti Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad222; (1945)1MLJ204
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain property from the defendants with mesne profits. The decree for possession was granted in April; 1942, together with a decree for past mesne profits. No enquiry was ordered under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned District Munsiff of Ongole stating that he left the question of future mesne profits open. Subsequently in July, 1942, an application was made by the plaintiffs to the District Munsiff to direct an enquiry under Rule 12. The District Munsiff, explaining that, although he had not made it specific in his judgment, his intention was that the plaintiffs should, by means of a separate suit, claim future mesne profits, because their evidence in regard to mesne profits was unsatisfactory, dismissed the application. There was then an appeal to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Bapatla. He held that inasmuch as the District Munsiff did not say specifically t...
Kannathal Achi Vs. A.R.V.D. Vaduerunathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ322
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a petition is maintainable by an assignee decree-holder to realise the amount payable by a purchaser in execution of a decree who failed to deposit the initial 25 per cent, of the sale price as required by Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code, and who has to make good the deficiency of price caused by the property being re-sold for a lesser amount. The appellant was the purchaser at the sale held on 3rd February, 1942, in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 10 of 1923 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga. She failed to deposit 25 per cent of the price with the result that the property was again sold the next day for Rs. 30,550, the sale to the appellant being for Rs. 32,000. The property was first brought to sale at the instance of the decree-holder, one Chidambaram Chetty. On 18th January, 1942, he had assigned the decree to one Annamalai Chetty who was not brought on record as the assignee...
Periambala Chettiar Vs. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad263; (1945)1MLJ279
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to enforce a promissory note executed by the respondent and his deceased brother Abdul Latif Sahib on the 10th May, 1937. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it as barred by limitation, holding that a payment of Rs. 500 for principal and Re. 0-10-8 for interest made by Abdul Latif on the 24th December, 1937 and duly endorsed by him on the note does not operate to save the suit as against the respondent.. Hence this appeal.2. The preamble to the note describes the executants as 'Tobacco mandy' (1) Mahamod Ghouse Sahib (respondent), (2) his brother Abdul Latif Sahib and it recites that the amount was borrowed 'on account of our urgency for the tobacco trade and for our family expenses.' It is the appellant's case that the executants were carrying on tobacco trade in partnership and that Abdul Latif one of the partners having made the part payment and endorsement, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›