Chennai Court May 1895 Judgments
Palaniappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Dorasami Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad402
1. We are clearly of opinion that the Deputy Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction in passing the order complained of under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cf. Ramanuja Jeeyarsvami v. Ramanuja Jeeyar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 354.2. It was not necessary for him to decide the question as to possession before passing such order and his finding that counter-petitioners were in possession is merely incidental and in the absence of any necessity in his opinion for the passing of an order under Section 145, we cannot say that the order passed by him was improper. Moreover, under Section 435 of the Code we have no power to interfere with an order passed with jurisdiction under Section 144.3. This petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Husananna Vs. Linganna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad423
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. I am of opinion that there is an appeal against a decree passed upon an award under Section 526 of the Civil Procedure Code, when the cause sought to be shown against the filing of the award has denied the submission to arbitration and the genuineness of the award.2. The main objections taken to this view are two: The first is that what is called a decree on an award, filed under Section 526, is not in reality one according to the definition of the term as contained in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the adjudication under Section 526 is not an adjudication in a suit or appeal as required by the first part of the definition. The second objection is that, even if such an adjudication be held to be a decree in the proper sense of the term an appeal from it is prohibited by the last clause of Section 522, even in such a case as the present.3. Now as to the first contention, no doubt the proceedings under Sections 525 and 526 begin with an application and ...
Tag this Judgment!Orr and ors. Vs. Raman Chettu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad320
1. Appellants are the lessees of the zamindari of Sivaganga in the district of Madura and respondents are the prior lessees of a village in that zamindari called Surakudi. There is a river called Palar, which rises in the Karandamalai hills in the district and runs, first, through a number of Government villages and feeds the tanks situated therein. It then enters the zamindari and, after feeding a number of tanks through supply-channels, empties itself into the tank of the Tirupatore village.2. Appellants represent the villages which depend for their irrigation on the Tirupatore tank, and respondents represent the Surakudi village. In November 1888, respondents put up a sand dam across the river, 94 yards in length, 1 yard in width, and f yard in height at the spot E in the plan, and thereby diverted all the water flowing down the river Palar into their supply-channel C, diminishing thereby the quantity which would otherwise be available for the Tirupatore tank.3. Hence this litigatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›