Chennai Court October 1896 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.
Khadar HussaIn Vs. Muhammad HussaIn Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ52
1. In the circumstances stated we think there can be no doubt that Article 12(a) of the Limitation Act cannot properly be applied to the suit brought by the plaintiff.2. Whatever was the intention of the parties who took part in the execution sale, that transaction could not affect the title of the plaintiff, and therefore It was not necessary for him to have the sale set aside.3. We cannot agree with the decision in Suryanna v. Duryi I.L.R. (1888) M. 258 which was also a case of a sale in execution of a decree.4. In accordance with the opinion expressed by the Full Bench, the Division Bench (The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Benson) set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and remanded the appeal for disposal in accordance with law....
Kadar HussaIn Vs. HussaIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad118
1. In the circumstances stated we think there can be no doubt that Article 12 (a) of the second schedule of the Limitation Act cannot properly be applied to the suit brought by the plaintiff.2. Whatever was the intention of the parties who took part in the execution sale, that transaction could not affect the title of the plaintiff, and therefore it was not necessary for him to have the sale set aside.3. We cannot agree with the decision in Suryanna v. Durgi I.L.R. 7 Mad. 258 which was also a case of a sale in execution of a decree.[After the delivery of the above judgment the decree of the District Court was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to he disposed of on the merits.]...
Queen-empress Vs. Karuppa Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad87
1. The Deputy Magistrate's reason for not accepting the appeal at first made by the four petitioners was that it was not presented by themselves or their pleader, but only by their pleader's clerk. Such presentation has been held by this Court to be equivalent to a presentation by the pleader himself, when the petition of appeal is signed by the pleader and he is duly authorised as was the case here vide Queen-Empress v. Gudiyati Samuel, Criminal Revision Case No. 153 of 1894 unreported Queen-Empress v. Virap-pan Chetti Criminal Eevision Case No. 50 of 1895 unreported and Qveen-Empress v. Chinna Basuva Chetti Criminal Revision Case No. 652 of 1895 unreported.2. We must therefore direct the original appeal to the replaced on the file and heard and disposed of according to law. The order on the second appeal filed by the petitioners is set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›