SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1939 Supreme(Mad) 418

WADSWORTH
S. P. K. N. Subramanian Firm, by Managing Partner S. P. K. N. Subramanian Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
M. Chidambaram Servai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal raises the question whether a security bond pledging an oil engine installed as part of a cinema can be deemed to be a transaction relating to immovable property so as to attract the provisions of Expl. 1 to Section 3, T.P. Act. The essential facts are the following: Defendant 5 owned a building which he let for a period of three years to defendants 1 and 2 who installed machinery therein and ran it as a cinema. We are now concerned with a 35 horse-power Petter oil engine which was used to work a dynamo to generate electricity for the apparatus and lighting. It is common ground that this engine was installed by making a concrete base fitted with bolts and attaching the engine to the bolts by means of nuts. The lease of defendants 1 and 2 expired in 1930 and there was a suit by defendant 5 for eviction and arrears of rent. Defendant 5 attached before judgment the machinery on the premises. That suit resulted in a compromise decree passed in October 1930 whereunder defendant 5 agreed to give defendants 1 and 2 a further lease for two years, the arrears of rent to be paid in instalments and there was a provision that in the event of default in payin






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top