Chennai Court August 1901 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.
Amdoo Miyan and anr. Vs. Mahamed Davood Khan Bahadur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ326
1. We concur in the decision of this Court in Appeal No. 230 of 1895 and must therefore hold that the fact that no notice of the petition was given to the defendants (the present petitioners) by the District Judge does not render his order granting leave to sue liable to be set aside--if the order was in accordance with law in other respects. We, however, find that leave was granted on an unverified letter apparently not presented in Court enclosing a Mahazarnamah purporting to be from certain persons of the Mussalman community of Kurnool. We think that the District Judge acted with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in treating such a letter as an application under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863. Section 647 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that 2nd August 1001 certain formalities of procedure be observed even in miscellaneous applications like the present, which are not suits. We think that an application under Section 18 ...
Amdoo Miyan and anr. Vs. Muhammad Davud Khan Bahadur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad685
1. We concur in the decision of this Court in Venkatappayya v. Venkatapathi Appeal No. 230 of 1895 (supra p. 687) and must therefore hold that the fact that no notice of the petition was given to the defendant (the presents petitioners) by the District Judge does not render his order granting leave to sue liable to be set aside if the order was in accordance with law in other respects. We, however, find that leave was granted on an unverified letter, apparently not presented in Court, enclosing a mahazarnamab, purporting to be from certain persons of the Mussalman community of Kurnool. We think that the District Judge acted with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure in treating such a letter as an application under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863. Section 647 of Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that certain formalities of procedure be observed even in miscellaneous applications like the present, which are not suits. We think that an app...
Minakshiachi Vs. Chinnappa Udayan and Sadasiva Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad689
ORDERSubrahmania Ayyar and Benson, JJ.1. If the house sought to be sold is property charged by the decree with maintenance, the property can be sold in execution of the decree even though the respondent was not made a party to the decree, since there can be no contention that the debt, was either illegal or immoral, and the decree is not merely a personal decree against the father alone as in Muttia v. Virammal I.L.R. 10 Mad. 283 but a decree against the representatives of the family directly creating a charge. The concluding part of the judgment in Muttia v. Virammal I.L.R. 10 Mad. 283 is an authority for holding that such a decree can be executed against the sons of the defendants, though not actually made parties.2. If, however, the property was not charged by the decree, the son, under the same authority, may be entitled to object to property taken by him by right of survivorship being proceeded against in execution.3. The District Judge has not definitely found whether the propert...
Subrahmania Ayyar Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad61
Chancellor, J.1. In this case the appellant was tried on an indictment in which he was charged with no less than forty-one acts, these acts extending over a period of two years. This was plainly in contravention of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 234, which provided that a person may only be tried for three offences of the same kind if committed within a period of twelve months. The reason of such a provision, which is analogous to our own provisions in respect of embezzlement, is obviously in order that the jury may not be prejudiced by the multitude of charges and the inconvenience of hearing together of such a number of instances of culpability and the consequent embarrassment both to Judges and accused. It is likely to cause confusion and to interfere with the definite proof of a distinct offence which it is the object; of all criminal procedure to obtain. The policy of such a provision is manifest and the necessity of a system of written accusation specifying a definite cr...
Subbarama Iyer and ors. Vs. Nagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ432
1. We agree with the Lower Courts in thinking this to be a case governed by the ruling reported in Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Papammah I.L.R. 19 M. 54the only difference, if any, being that the judgment-debtor in this case appears never to have contested any of the applications for execution. In our opinion as the judgment-debtor had notice of those applications, he is bound by the orders passed thereon, as the Subordinate Judge who passed those orders must be held, whether rightly or wrongly, to have determined that the decree was executable. Mungal Parshad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri Choudhry 8 I.A. 123.2. As observed by their Lordships in a similar case Ram Kirpal Shukul v. Mussumat Rup Kuari 11 I.A. 42 it would be a reproach upon the administration of justice, if the plaintiff were now to be told that her decree that has been executed for the last 20 years was not executable.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Subbarama Ayyar and ors. Vs. Nagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad683
1. We agree with the Lower Courts in thinking this to be a case governed by the ruling in Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Papammah I.L.R. 19 Mad. 54 the only difference (if any) being that the judgment-debtor in this case appears never to have contested any of the applications for execution. In our opinion, as the judgment-debtor had notice of those applications he is bound by the orders passed thereon, as the Subordinate Judge who passed those orders must be held, whether rightly or wrongly, to have determined that the decree was executable Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri Chowdhry L.R. 8 IndAp 123 : I.L.R. 8. Calc. 51.2. As observed by their Lordships in a similar case, Ram Kirpa Shukul v. Mussumat Rup Kuari L.R. 11 IndAp 37: I.L.R. 6 All. 269it would be a reproach upon the administration of justice if the plaintiff were now to be told that her decree that has been executed for the last 20 years was not executable.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›