Lakshmamma Vs. Krishniah

Lakshmamma vs Krishniah

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 30, 1904

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780528

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/780528
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Sep 30, 1904
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 1. We are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought will not lie neither as a suit for possession nor as a suit for the recovery of the money The plaintiff is not entitled to possession, for the property was not mortgaged to him and he is not entitled to another decree for the recovery of the money as he ha...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lakshmamma

Respondent

Krishniah

Legal References

Reported In: (1904)14MLJ490

Excerpt

- - 1. we are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought will not lie neither as a suit for possession nor as a suit for the recovery of the money the plaintiff is not entitled to possession, for the property was not mortgaged to him and he is not entitled to another decree for the recovery of the money as he has already got one.1. we are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought will not lie neither as a suit for possession nor as a suit for the recovery of the money the plaintiff is not entitled to possession, for the property was not mortgaged to him and he is not entitled to another decree for the recovery of the money as he has already got one. we must, therefore, reverse the order of the district judge remanding the suit for trial and restore that of the district munsif dismissing the suit with the defendant's costs in this and in the district court.

Full Judgment

1. We are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought will not lie neither as a suit for possession nor as a suit for the recovery of the money The plaintiff is not entitled to possession, for the property was not mortgaged to him and he is not entitled to another decree for the recovery of the money as he has already got one. We must, therefore, reverse the order of the District Judge remanding the suit for trial and restore that of the District Munsif dismissing the suit with the defendant's costs in this and in the District Court.

Same Parties Lakshmamma vs Krishniah Same Subject Property

Property