Chennai Court October 1894 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.
Karuppa Pillai Vs. Athamsa Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ140
1. The question in dispute between the parties to the appeal 'relates to the satisfaction of a decree obtained in the Small Cause Court as to which the court executing that decree has found in proceedings under Section 258 of the Code that a sum of Rs. 130, and not the full sum of Rs. 255, has been paid. There was no appeal against this finding of the executing court as there might have been, and consequently the order has become final. The , present suit is virtually to set aside and to restrain the defendant by injunction from the execution of the Small Cause Court decree. We are clearly of opinion that the subordinate judge is in error in holding that the suit will lie. No doubt an action can be maintained on a contract such-as there was in Nujeem Mullick v. Erfam Mollah (1884) 22 W. R. 298 and Nukend Harshet v. Haridas Khenji I.L.R. (1892) B. 23 or again a suit may lie in cases such as that in Kunhamed v. Kutti I.L.R. (1896) M. 168 But here the dispute relates not to any matter out...
Pana, Ravanna Mana, Ana, Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Kana, Rcona, Kana Velli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ283
1. It appears from the plaint that the 1st Defendant Vellian was on the 19th January 1887 engaged by the plaintiff to carry on his business in Moulmein for a period of three years and that accordingly he did act as the plaintiff's agent till the 17th December 1889 when he left Moulmein. It is charged against the 1st defendant that during the period of his agency he acted in contravention of the plaintiff's orders and that on his return to this country he refused to render proper accounts. The plaint was presented on the 14th January 1898.2. On the 14th August 1893 the defendants put in separate written statements in both of which it is objected that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, because the plaintiff is only one of several members of a Hindu family carrying on business in partnership together. On the same day, the 14th August, certain preliminary issues were adjusted with reference to this objection. By the first of them the question of fact is raised. 'Whether (as allege...
Alagappa Chetti Vs. Vellian Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad33
1. It appears from the plaint that the first defendant Vellian was, on the 19th January 1887, engaged by the plaintiff to carry on his business in Moulmein for a period of three years, and that, accordingly, he did act as the plaintiff's agent till the 17th December 1889, when he left Moulmein. It is charged against the first defendant that during the period of his agency he acted in contravention of the plaintiffs orders, and that, on his return to this country, he refused to render proper accounts. The plaint was presented on the 14th January 1893.2. On the 14th August 1893, the defendants put in separate written statements, in both of which it is objected that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, because the plaintiff is only one of several members of a Hindu family carrying on business in partnership together. On the same day, the 14th August, certain preliminary issues were adjusted with reference to this objection. By the first of them the question of fact is raised whethe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›