Chennai Court August 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.
Nanda Varapu Peda Latchanna Vs. Soory China Sarvayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ282
Muthuswami Aiyar, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the 1st defendant's claim to the land in dispute as his Inam is res judicata. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 7 of his Judgment. It is observed by him that between the plaintiff and the defendants in the previous suit including plaintiffs and 1st defendant the question is certainly res judicata. Though the plaintiff and defendants in the present suit were merely co-defendants in the previous suit and though they were ex parte and. there was no contest between them yet my decision in this case must depend on explanation V of Section 13 of the Cede of Civil Procedure. It was held with reference to that explanation in the case reported in I. L. R. 14 M 325 Chandu v. Kunhamed, that though the 1st defendant in that case under whom the then plaintiff claimed was ex parte in the previous suit and the title of the 2nd defendant cannot therefore be said to have bee...
Marian Pillai and ors. Vs. Bishop of Mylapore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad447
1. The church, which is the subject of dispute, is called the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Assumption, and is situated in Big Parcherry in Black Town. It appears to have been built about 1640, and in the list of Boman Catholic Churches (Exhibit C) it is described as supported by the See of Saint Thome and by private contributions. There is no endowment, and as far as can be gathered it was built by Native Christians with the assistance of a Mr. D'Souza, a rich Portuguese merchant. There appear to have been quarrels from time to time about its management, but for a long time--at any rate more than a century--it has been within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Mylapore. At the time of the concordat between the Pope and the King of Portugal in 1886, it was placed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Madras. But, subsequently by a decree of 1887, it was transferred back again to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Mylapore.2. The present suit is by the Bishop of ...
Latchanna Vs. Saravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad164
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendant's claim to the land in dispute as his inam is res judicata. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 7 of his judgment. It is observed by him that as between the plaintiff and the defendants in the previous suit including plaintiff and first defendant the question is certainly res judicata. Though the plaintiff and defendants in the present suit wore merely co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were ex parte and there was no contest between them, yet my decision in this case must depend on explanation V of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held with reference to that explanation in Chandu v. Kunhamed I.L.R. 14 Mad. 324 that though the first defendant in that case under whom the then plaintiff claimed was ex parte in the previous suit and the title of the second defendant cannot, therefore, be said to have been actively con...
Queen-empress Vs. Jagannayakulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad46
Best, J.1. The finding is that the 'gaming' took place in a vacant site belonging to the seventh accused adjoining a public street.2. The Deputy Magistrate held that this did not constitute an offence punishable under Clause 10 of Section 3 of Act No. III of 1889 (Madras), which makes punishable gambling or cock-fighting in any 'public street, road, thoroughfare or place of public resort.' In thus holding the Deputy Magistrate is no doubt right. But he proceeded to find the first and seventh accused (the only appellants in the case), respectively, guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 6 of the Act, the latter of which renders liable to punishment any person who 'opens, keeps or uses or permits to be used any common gaming house,' while the former makes punishable any person 'found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.' The Deputy Magistrate refers to the definition of 'common gaming house' as contained in Madras Act III of 1888, and, as it c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›