Chennai Court January 1883 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.
Sundram Chetti and ors. and Ponnusami Chetti and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR6Mad203
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1875 the Muhammadans applied for permission to erect a mosque in Sevvaipett on the site occupied by the mosque recently destroyed, but the Hindus objected and the application was refused. The Muhammadans nevertheless, it would seem, occupied the site, and in 1878 again applied for permission to build the mosque. The Hindus opposed the application : they intimated their apprehension that the erection of the mosque would lead to disturbances when they were conducting their processions with music or celebrating ceremonies in the temples adjoining the river.2. The Collector, Mr. Longley, accorded sanction to the erection of the mosque on condition that the Muhammadans undertook to allow the free passage of processions; but, professing to act as District - Magistrate, he at the same time ordered that all music should cease when any procession was passing or repassing the mosque; and he directed that this order should be notified to the inhabitants of Sevvai...
Lingammal Vs. Chinna Venkatammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad227
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The decree on which the order of the Subordinate Judge proceeded has been set aside.2. It is unusual and inconvenient to allow a person, who might have applied before decree, to be joined as co-plaintiff after decree, even if it be lawful to do so, where no interest has devolved and no interest has been created since the institution of proceedings.3. The only section of the Code on which the learned Counsel for the respondent can rely is the 32nd, which points to the joinder of parties whose presence may be necessary for the adjudication of questions raised in the suit. Here the period of adjudication has passed. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge had not a discretionary power under Section 32 at any stage of the suit, and, although the widows are still engaged in litigation, prima facie they have an equal right to collect the debts.4. The appeal is dismissed, but without costs....
Suri Bhatta Vs. Sitarama Bhatta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad195
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appeal was filed on the 26th January 1881. The respondent died after service on the 17th April 1881. The sixty days from the death of the respondent allowed for an application to substitute the representative expired after the Court had risen for the vacation.2. The Court re-opened on 5th July. Before an order was passed declaring the appeal had abated, the appellant applied on the 11th July that a representative should be substituted. On the 12th December the Court passed an order declaring the appeal had abated as no application had been made within sixty days from the death of the deceased. On the 30th January 1882 the present application was presented under Section 371, Civil Procedure Code. The application was therefore presented within sixty days from the date of the order declaring that the appeal had abated. As the law stood on the date the order was passed, the Court could not take notice of the sufficiency of the excuse made by the appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›