Chennai Court March 1898 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.
Ramasami Aiyar and anr. Vs. Annasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ124
1. Objection is taken to the frame of the suit on the ground that the appellants are still in possession of the jewels and other temple property. Indeed an admission was made to that effect in the Court below (see paragraph 26 of the judgment). It is said on the respondents' behalf that although the appellants are in possession the. respondents are also in possession as trustees. This may be so; though it is not admitted, but it is none the less true that the respondents are entitled to further relief than a mere declaration of title. It follows, having regard to the provision of the Specific Relief Act, Section 42, that the suit for a declaration cannot lie. It is further argued, that the plaint can be sustained in so far as it asks for an injunction, But, in our opinion, an injunction is not the appropriate remedy. The respondents really want more than an injunction, they want the positive relief which a decree in ejectment gives. It would be futile to give the respondents a merely p...
Ramasamaiyan and ors. Vs. Virasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ126
Shephard, J.1. The parties to this appeal are on the one hand the infant son of a judgment-debtor, named Ramaiyan, and on the other the judgment-creditors of the same person who in execution of their decree purchased the property previously held by them under an hypothecation. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, without hearing any evidence, on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The District Judge on appeal reversed this decree and granted a decree in the plaintiff's favour, holding that the plaintiff's original interest in the property had been in no way affected by the sale thereof, because the plaintiff had not been joined with his father and brother in the suit which led up to the sale. The District Judge bases his judgment on the ruling of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhawani Prasad v. Kallu, I.L.R., 17 A., 537. In that case, the plaint was similar to the plaint now before us in that it did not allege that the debt incurred by the father ...
Ramasamayyan and ors. Vs. Virasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad222
Shephard, J.1. The parties to this appeal are, on the one hand, the infant son of a judgment-debtor named Ramayyan, and on the other the judgment creditors of the same person who, in execution of their decree, purchased the property previously held by them under an hypothecation. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, without hearing any evidence, on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The District Judge on appeal reversed this decree and granted a decree in the plaintiff's favour, holding that the plaintiff's original interest in the property had been in no way affected by the sale thereof, because the plaintiff had not been joined with his father and brother in the suit which led up to the sale. The District Judge bases his judgment on the ruling of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhawani Prasad v. Kallu I.L.R. 17 All. 537. In that case the plaint was similar to the plaint now before us in that it did not allege that the debt incurred by the father...
Raja Vellanki Venkata Rama Ran Vs. Raja Papamma Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad299
1. This suit was brought to recover possession of the village of Vundrazavaram lying within the zamindari of Nidudavolu, which was formerly the property of the zamindar Narayya Appa Rau. Narayyadied without issue on the 7th of December 1864, leaving a will which dealt with the zamindari and the village separately.2. The suit was commenced in February 1888. The original plaintii'f was Jagannatha, the appellant's father. He died at an early stage of the proceedings, and the appellant was substituted as plaintiff in his stead. The defendants were Papamma, the surviving widow of Narayya, and an infant also called Narayya Appa Rau, whose late father Ramayya had been adopted by Papamma, some time after the completion of the transaction, the effect of which is now in question. The infant Narayya died in the course of the litigation and on his death his interest became vested in the respondent Papamma.3. It is common ground that Jagannatha was in possession of the village in dispute from 1869 ...
Raja Rau Lakshmi Kantaiyammi Vs. Raja Inuganti Rajagopal Rau Plaintiff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad344
1. The only question in this appeal is what is the effect of a decree of the High Court at Madras made on the 2nd of May 1882, in a suit brought by Sitaramasami against Sitaiyammi, the mother and heiress of Rayadappa deceased, who was the son of Ramarayanin, and had died unmarried and without issue. Sitaramasami was the son of a younger brother of Ramarayanin. and the plaint, which was filed in April 1869 in the Civil Court of Vizagapatam, alleged that the plaintiff was the nearest surviving heir of Rayadappa, and stated that the relief sought for was a declaration of the plaintiff's right to succeed after the death of Sitaiyammi to the enjoyment of the immoveable property described in the plaint and the annexed schedule, and a declaration that the alienations of parts of the property which had been made by Sitaiyammi to the prejudice of the reversionary right of the plaintiff to a number of persons who were also made defendants might be declared invalid or to be of no effect beyond he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›