Chennai Court January 1899 Judgments
Appa Rao Vs. Sobhanadri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1899
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad158
1. As the District Munsif thinks that the allegation in the plaint that the kattubadi is a charge on the land is a false allegation made for the purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, we think that the proper course is to require the plaintiff to satisfy that Court that the allegation is bona fide and not merely colourable in order to change the venue. The plaintiff may be required to adduce some decision of the Courts, or some orders or reports of Government or public authorities in which such a charge has been recognized, or, if the charge is a matter of contract, he may be required to produce any written or other evidence in support of the contract. If the Court then thinks the allegation is made bona fide even though the Court may not hold it to be actually proved, it should register the plaint on the Original Side and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Otherwise the plaint should be registered by the District Munsif and disposed of on the Small Caus...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Chetti Vs. Annamalai Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ39
1. The suit, out of which this appeal arose, was brought on a foreign Judgment, obtained in the Court at Pondi-cherry, on a promissory note, executed by the appellant, in favour of the plaintiff--respondent--in Pondicherry. The date of the for-eign Judgment sued upon in 20th March 1896 and this suit was instituted on the 9th October 1896. Meantime, that is, on 20th July 1896, the appellant was declared an insolvent in Pondicherry and a syndic was appointed to take charge of, and administer his property. The present suit was contested by the appellant, but the District Judge decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The main questions raised in appeal are that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that, even if he had, the suit was not maintainable against the appellant at the time it was brought. There is no doubt that the parties are French subjects domiciled in French territory. The ground, on which the plaintiff contended that the District Court of South Arcot at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›