Chennai Court April 1891 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.
Paningapalli Ramasami Vs. Pentakota Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ251
1. The District Munsif has found the plaintiff is the Archaka and that it is with his permission that the sites of houses in the village of Ramagiri are occupied. There is also an averment in the plaint that 1st defendant built a house on the plaint site No. 2 on condition of quitting it when desired by plaintiff. In the absence of any other trustee, the Archaka may be doing the duties of Dharmakarta, as is urged by appellant's pleader to be the case here. If either the averment in the plaint or the allegation that plaintiff has been doing the duties of Dharmakarta be true, plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit. The Calcutta case relied on by the District Judge is not in point, as the object (sic) the plaintiff in that suit is stated to have been to 'oust the M(sic)wali, got herself appointed in his place and have the properties vested in her,' Latifunissa Bibi v. Nazirun Bibi I. L. R 11 C 36; whereas the present suit is brought for the purpose of recovering property on behalf of ...
Kamath Chathappan Nair Vs. Edavalath Vammeri Pydel Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ555
1. The question whether the decree as amended is binding on the appellant was decided in the affirmative as between him and the decree-holder in. C.M.P. No 319 of 1888. The matter is therefore res judicata, as it is the same decree which is now under execution though the property attached is different. The decision in 'Parthasaradi v. Chinnakrishna I.L.R. (1882) M. 304 does not apply.2. It has been further argued that the decree amended was not the final decrea passed in O.S. No. 162 of 1878, and the decree of the Appellate Court was the one which should have been amended. We are referred to several decided cases in support of this contention, and especially to the decision in Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan I.L.R. (1888) A. 267 in which the decision in Sundara v. Subbanna I.L.R. (1886) 9 M. 351 was dissented from.3. Were the question not res judicata for the purpose of the execution of the amended decree, we should have been inclined to refer to the Full Bench the question...
Chathappan Vs. Pydel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad403
1. The question whether the decree, as amended, is binding on the appellant, was decided in the affirmative as between them and the decree-holder in Pydel v. Chathappan I.L.R. 14 Mad. 150. The matter is, therefore, res judicata as it is the same decree which is now under execution, though the property attached is different. The decision, Parthasaradi v. Chinnakrishna I.L.R. 5 Mad. 304 does not apply. It has been further argued that the decree amended was not the final decree passed in Original Suit No. 162 of 1878, and the decree of the Appellate Court was the one which should have been amended. We are referred to several decided oases in support of this contention, and especially to the decision, Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan I.L.R. 11 All. 267, in which the decision in Sundara v. Subbanna I.L.R. 9 Mad. 354 was dissented from.2. Were the question not res judicata for the purposes of the execution of the amended decree we should have been inclined to refer to the Full Ben...
Narangatile Chengotteri Chandu Nambiar Vs. Murichandiyil Kunhamed Kutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ550
1. As to the first question decided against appel-lant by the Subordinate Court, whether 'the suit is maintainable, we think the Lower Appellate Court was in error. The case appears to have been treated in the Lower Court as one of partition amongst members of a family governed by Hindu Law. But it was stated by appellant's vakil before us and not denied on behalf of respondent that 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are governed by the Mahommadan law of succession, and that this is so further appears from the nature of the claim in the former suit, O.S. No. 521 of 1882. This being so,the principle laid down in Venkatarama v. Meera Labai I.L.R. 11 M. 204 and the cases there followed have no application to the present case. A sharer by Maham-madan law has a right to a specific share in each item of property left by the person from whom he inherits and can sue to reecover that share from any person in possession of the property. No doubt there might be cases in which a Mahammadan sharer would n...
Chandu Vs. Kunhamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad324
1. As to the first question decided against the appellant by the Subordinate Court, whether the suit is maintainable, we think the lower Appellate Court was in error. The case appears to have been treated in the lower Court as one of partition amongst members of a family governed by Hindu Law. But it was stated by the appellant's vakil before us and not denied on behalf of the respondent that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are governed by the Muhammadan law of succession, and that this is so further appears from the nature of the claim in the former suit, Original Suit No. 521 of 1882. This being so, the principle laid down in Venkatarama v. Meera Labai I.L.R. 13 Mad. 275, and the cases there followed have no application to the present case. A sharer by Muhammadan law has a right to a specific share in each [item of property left by the person from whom he inherits] and can sue to recover that share from any person in possession of the property. No doubt there might be cases in which a Muh...
Janaki Vs. Dhanu Lall and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad454
1. The plaintiff sues to set aside a decree obtained by defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 226 of 1887 on the Original Side of this Court as having been obtained by fraud. In that suit, the defendant No. 1 had sued (1) Muni Singh and (2) his half-brother, Ghulab Singh, upon a promissory note jointly executed by them. Ghulab Singh died on January 25th, 1888, while the suit was pending, after which his half-brothers, the abovementioned Muni Singh and Govindh Singh, were brought on the record as his personal representatives and a decree passed against them accordingly, It appears that Ghulab Singh was reported to have left a will, and, in February 1888, the solicitors of defendant No. 1 endeavoured to ascertain from the four executors named therein whether they intended to apply for probate. Nothing was done, however, to prove the will. Two of the executors were unwilling to come forward and one died; the brother Muni Singh took no steps. The result was that the two half-brothers were brou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›