Chennai Court September 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.
Venkatanarasimha Naidu Vs. Papammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad54
1. It appears that, since the passing of the decree in 1879, no less than four applications have been made for execution, and orders have been passed accordingly for the construction of a dam or 'floor' as it is termed in the decree. These orders were passed notwithstanding the opposition of the plaintiff and he never appealed.2. There can be no doubt that, although, some of the terms of the decree are inserted for the protection of the defendant, it was never intended that the defendant should execute it against the plaintiff. It is argued that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree and that the previous orders in execution should be disregarded, and we are referred to Kalka Singh v. Parasram L.R. 22 IndAp 68. That was not a case in which the execution of a decree was immediately in question and is therefore distinguishable from the other decisions of the Judicial Committee which were cited.3. Those decisions go to show that although a decree does not...
Barrow Vs. Javerchund Sett
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad67
1. Even if the period during which the application was pending in the Madras Court of Small Causes should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the application of 26th February 1889, being one for sanctioning the agreement to give time for payment, and not for execution of the decree, was clearly not a step in aid of execution; the subsequent application is, therefore, barred.2. We must, therefore, allow this appeal and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge. Under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this appeal....
Rajeswara Rau and ors. Vs. Hari Babandhu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad162
Shephard, J.1. The decree passed on the 11th October 1887 provided for the payment of a certain sum in four annual instalments, the date fixed being the 11th of October 1888 and the following years; and it was further provided that if default were made in the payment of any instalment, then, without reference to the succeeding instalments, the whole amount should be paid with interest at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem. The present application for execution of the decree in respect of the instalments due in 1890 and 1891 was made on the 7th October 1893. This application is clearly not barred by the law of limitation if payment was made of the first two instalments, or if the decree-holder waived the judgment-debtor's default. The decree-holder adduces evidence to show that payments were made in 1888 and 1889, and this evidence was accepted by the District Munsif.2. The District Judge's finding on the point is not a positive finding, and as a finding in the reversal of a Court of First ...
In Re: Madras Deveton Trust Fund
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad443
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is an application with reference to the Madras Doveton Charities, a well--known educational institution in this city. The management of the charities is vested in a body of persons called the committee of management; but the funds of the institution are vested in another body called the trustees. By a provision in the trust deed the committee of management is empowered to require the trustees to invest such portion of the trust moneys and securities as for the time being shall exceed Rupees 2,00,000 or any part or parts of such excess 'in the purchase or building of any additional land, buildings and premises.' Under this provision the buildings now in use for the purposes of the said institution were erected out of moneys which were for the time being in excess of the prescribed two lakhs and under the terms of the trust deed they are in the possession, custody and control of the trustees.2. It is stated that the buildings in question require 'exhaustive an...
The Madras Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund Vs. Ragava Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad200
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the official liquidators of an association, called the Madras Hindu Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund for the recovery of Rs. 4,845-4-0 by the sale of two houses in Triplicane mortgaged under an instrument, dated the 16th December 1868, executed by the father of the defendants, the late Parthasarathi Chetti, a member of the association, for Rs. 3,750 lent to him as such member under the rules of the association. The loan and the mortgage are admitted, and it is only on questions of law that the parties are at issue.2. The first of the questions is whether the mortgage sued upon is an illegal transaction as is contended on behalf of the defendants. The validity of this contention depends upon the answer to the question whether the said association is one falling within the latter part of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, which runs as follows:No company, association, or partnership consisting of more-than twenty persons shall be formed after the...
Jambuvayyan Vs. Venkatarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad65
1. It is conceded that if the Subordinate Court had, in the first instance, decreed in plaintiff's favour, it would have had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 341, but it is contended that it is otherwise, since the Subordinate Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the decree in his favour was passed by the Appellate Court.2. If this argument be valid, the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court would also be ousted, if the plaintiff had obtained a decree in his favour in the first instance, and that decree had subsequently been confirmed on appeal, since the decree to be executed would be that of the Appellate Court.3. There can be no doubt that the Subordinate Court must execute the decree of an Appellate Court, reversing its own, and that in that respect it is regarded for all intents and purposes as the Court which passed the decree.4. We think the order of the learned Judge was right and dismiss this appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›