Chennai Court April 1895 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.
Rama Ayyan Vs. Sreenivasa Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad230
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. In Original Suit No. 77 of 1883 on the file of the Temelprom District Munsif's Court, a decree was passed against the present respondent. The appellant applied to that Court to execute the decree as transferee thereof. The respondent put in a petition wherein he stated that he had transferred certain immoveable property to the appellant in consideration of his paying the judgment debt to the original decree-holder, that the appellant accordingly had discharged the debt, that subsequently, however, he (the appellant) had got the decree transferred to himself, and that, having thus become the assignee, instead of entering up satisfaction, he has fraudulently applied for execution of the decree against the respondent. He therefore prayed that the application for execution be rejected. The District Munsif, without taking evidence, dismissed the petition on grounds which I think it unnecessary to notice. The District Judge on appeal came to the conclusion that, if the...
V. Rama Aiyer Vs. S. Sreenivasa Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ218
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. In Original Suit No. 77 of 1893 on the file of the Temelprom District Munsif's Court a decree was passed against the present respondent. The appellant applied to that court to execute the decree as transferee thereof. The respondent put in a petition wherein he stated that he had transferred certain immoveable property to the appellant in consideration of his paying the judgment-debt to the original decree-holder, that the appellant had accordingly discharged the debt, that subsequently, however, he had got the decree transferred to himself and that having thus become the assignee, instead of entering up satisfaction, he has fraudulently applied for execution of the decree against the respondent. He therefore prayed that the application for execution be rejected. The District Munsif without taking evidence, dismissed the petition on grounds which I think it unnecessary to notice. The District Judge on appeal came to the conclusion that, if the allegations contain...
Sri Venkata Tholappala Charlu Vs. Venkata Charlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ209
1. The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. He based his decision on the ground that the suit was analogous to that decided in S.A. 200 of 1891 in which it was held that a suit for a declaration that a person was entitled to the exclusive right to the office of Desayi would not lie,--the right of the Daseyi being alleged to be a right to settle caste disputes in certain villages. It is1 urged upon us in appeal that the right claimed by plaintiff is a right to an hereditary office to which titles have been attached by the former Billing power, that the right of the Anegandi Raja Guru carried with it a monopoly, and that it had been found by the District Munsif that defendants had been guilty of personation and deceit, assuming the hereditary titles of the plaintiff, and under such false pretences receiving fees which would otherwise have been paid to plaintiff and not to defendants. On this state of facts, as found by the District Mun...
Annapurni Nachiar Vs. Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ121
Best, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant (2nd defendant) or the 2nd Res-pondent (1st defendant) is entitled to possession of the impartible Zemindari of Uthumalai in the Tinnevelly District. The 1st Respondent is the Collector of the District by whom the suit was instituted for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to which of of the rival claimants was entitled to the Zemindari of which possession had been taken by him as agent of the Court of Wards on behalf of a minor named Navaneetha Kristna Marudappa Thevar as adopted son of the Zemindar Iruthalaya Maruthappa Thevar who died on the 12th August 1891. The minor alse died on the 16th December 1891.2. The fact and the validity of the adoption of the boy Nava-neetha Krishna by the late Zemindar Iruthalaya, whose widows both appellant and 2nd Respondent claim to be, were denied by the appellant and formed the subject of several issues (5 to 8) settled for trial in the suit. These issues are considere...
Annapurni Nachiar Vs. Collector of Tinnevelly and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad277
Best, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant (second defendant) or the second respondent (first defendant) is entitled to possession of the impartible Zamindari of Uthumalai in the Tinnevelly district.2. The first respondent is the Collector of the district, by whom the suit was instituted for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to which of the rival claimants was entitled to the zamindari, of which possession had been taken by him as Agent of the Court of Wards on behalf of a minor named Navanita KrishnaMarudappa Tevar as adopted son of the zamindar Irudalaya Marudappa Tevar, who died on 12th August 1891. The minor also died on 16th December 1891.3. The fact and validity of the adoption of the boy Navanita Krishna by the late zamindar Irudalaya, whose widows both appellant and the second respondent claim to be, were denied by the appellant and formed the subject of several issues (5 to 8) settled for trial in the suit. These issues are considered by ...
Rama Reddi Vs. Papi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad199
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The District Judge passed an order directing that a certificate do issue in favour of the appellant, a minor under the Court of Wards on security being given on his behalf. This appeal is against so much of the order as relates to security. The respondent takes the preliminary objection that no appeal lies against that portion of the order which is appealed against.2. Referring to a contention that an appeal lies in such cases, Muttusami Ayyar, J. in Sundara Ammal v. Kullappa Chetti Appeal against Order No. 15 of 1894, unreported observed as follows:Having regard to the language of Section 19, it does not appear that an appeal is allowed. It suggests an intention to allow no appeal except as to the grant of certificate as was held with reference to Act 27 of 1860 in Monmohinee Dassee v. Khetter Gopaul Dey I.L.R. 1 Cal. 127. Following this view I hold that the objection taken by the respondent is good. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Muthukarppa Chetty and anr. and Chidambara thevan and anr. Vs. Sakkara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ232
Best, J.1. The suit is for the share claimed by plaintiff as Melvaram of land cultivated by 1st and 2nd defendants and alleged to have been wrongfully taken by the other defendants.2. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the suit was not mantainable in the Small Cause Court being a suit for the profits of immoveable property wrongfully received by defendants 4 and 5 and therefore within Clause 31 of Soh. 11 of Act IX of 1887; and secondly that the suit as against 1st and 2nd defendants is not maintainable in any Court in the absence of exchange of puttah and muchilka as required by Section 7 Act VII of 1895 Madras. The former contention is supported by the decision of the Bombay Hige Court in Damodar Gopal Dikshal v. Chintamon Balkrishna Kurai I.L.R. (1892) B. 42 where it is said ' If the plaints had alleged that the defendant had wrongfully received the plaintiff's share of profits then no doubt the suit would have fallen under Clause 31 of Schedule II.3. As to the second ...
Kasim Saiba and ors. Vs. Sudhindra Thirtha Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad359
1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of Es. 6,599, alleging it to be due on a mortgage bond executed in 1880 to his father, since deceased, by the late Sumatindra Swami, formerly head of the Puttige mutt at Udipi.2. The defendant, successor of Sumatindra and present swami of that mutt, contested the suit. The Subordinate Judge dismissed it, the chief grounds for the decision being (i) that the instrument sued on was invalid as a mortgage, as it was executed pending the litigation between the late Sumatindra and the defendant which terminated in favour of the latter; (ii) that the loan was not granted under circumstances rendering the debt binding on the mutt.3. On behalf of the plaintiff (appellant) no attempt was made before us to impeach the Subordinate Judge's conclusion that the mortgage is invalid on the ground of lis pendens; and upon the admitted facts of the case, the correctness of the Subordinate Judge's view cannot be questioned.4. The main point argued before us was wheth...
Chidamabara Mudali and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ91
ORDER1. It is objected that no appeal lies in this case. I think the objection is well-founded. The order passed under Section 40 of Act II of 1864 by the District Munsiff directing that possession be given to the holder of the Collector's certificate is clearly not a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. No appeal or second appeallies against that order under the Code. Nor is any appeal given by the Revenue Recovery Act. I must therefore reject the appeal on the preliminary ground taken for the respondent.2. The appellants will pay the respondent's costs....
Queen-empress Vs. Basappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad394
1. Following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hardwar Sing v. Khega Ojha I.L.R. 20 Cal. 870 with which we entirely agree, we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid be refunded and the case retried....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »