Chennai Court November 1895 Judgments
Soopiyadath Kunhammad, Karnavan of His Tarwad (Dead) and anr. Vs. Soop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1895
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ27
1. We do not think that the reason given by the District Munsif for refusing to make the plaintiffs a party to the execution proceedings was correct. He, no doubt, ought to have inquired into the question as to whether the plaintiff was the legal representative of the deceased Moosa, or not. But without doing so he dismissed the plaintiff's petition to be made a party. It was, however, open to the plaintiff to appeal against that order see Narayanasami Reddi v. Osuru Reddi I.L.R. (1901) M. 548 but he did hot do so. His remedy was by appeal, and having failed to take that remedy, he cannot now bring a separate suit to obtain the remedy. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Manavikraman Vs. Avisilan Koya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad80
1. The timber in respect of which plaintiff seeks for compensation was attached before judgment in Original Suit No. 490 of 1888 on the file of the District Munsif of Ernad. It had been cut in a forest by the plaintiff on the strength of a karar obtained from Manjery Karanamalpad, but the defendant sued in Original Suit No. 490 of 1888 alleging his own title to the mala and therefore to the timber which had been cut therein. It was on the allegation that the timber was his that the defendant obtained the attachment before judgment. Eventually the Court found that the defendant had no title to the mala and the judgment was confirmed on appeal (Exhibit G).2. Under Section 491 of the Civil Procedure Code it is open to a Court on the application of a defendant to award compensation for attachment before judgment in two cases (1) when the attachment was applied for on insufficient grounds, and (2) if the suit fails and it appears to the Court there was no probable ground for instituting the...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabha Valiya Rajah Vs. Vedapuratti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad40
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to a Full Bench by Shephard and Best, JJ., is 'whether, after the time mentioned in the decree and before any order for sale, the mortgagor is precluded from redeeming the property?' The decree in question directs that, upon the plaintiff (the mortgagor) paying a certain sum into Court on or before a day certain, the defendants (the mortgagees) shall deliver up the mortgaged property to the plaintiff and 'that, if such payment be not made on or before the said date, the said property be sold.' The money was not paid within the time limited, but it was paid into Court after that date and the property was put in possession of the plaintiff under the decree. The mortgagee refused to receive the money, and applied for restoration of the property on the ground that it was no longer open to the plaintiff, after the expiration of the time limited, to apply for execution of the decree. The District Judge ruled in favour of the mortgagee on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›