Chennai Court September 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.
Annasamy Aiyar and ors. Vs. Mahadeva Sastry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ403
ORDER1. The first Class Sub-divisional Magistrate found that the petitioners all acted in accordance with the directions of the 1st accused. He found that before and at the time of the alleged offences the 1st accused was in possession of the receptacle containing the paddy contributions, and had appointed his own watchmen, two of whom are amongst the petitioners, and that the complainant had sent a notice to the 1st accused whereby he acknowledged the 1st accused's possession and stated that he would be held responsible for all damage. The Sabha only authorized the complainant to endeavour to remove the paddy peaceably, and if he met with any resistance directed him to resort to a Civil Court. The complainant endeavoured to take possession of the paddy forcibly with his servants, and the acts complained of were done by the 1st accused and the petitioners in resisting this attempt to take possession and in maintaining the possession of the 1st accused.2. In the circumstances, no offenc...
Sabhapathi Chetti and ors. Vs. Narayanasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad555
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Shephard, J., disallowing a claim preferred, under Sections 278 and 282 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the appellants as mortgagees of a certain house and ground attached in execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 58 of 1900 on the Original Side of this Court.2. The respondent's vakil takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies against the order disallowing the claim, firstly, because such an order is not specified as an appealable order in any of the 29 clauses of Section 588, Civil Procedure Code, and the right of appeal, if any, under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, is taken away by the first paragraph of Section 588 and by Section 591, Civil Procedure Code; and secondly, because the said order is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 15 of the Letters Patent.3. We are clearly of opinion that neither of these objections is well founded. As regards the first, the matter has been practically concluded by the decision of th...
King-emperor Vs. Ayya Annasamy Aiyar and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad624
1. The First-class Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the petitioners all acted in accordance with the directions of the first accused. He found that, before and at the time of the alleged offences, the first accused was in possession of the receptacle containing the paddy contributions and had appointed his own watchmen, two of whom are amongst the petitioners, and that the complainant had sent a notice to the first accused, whereby he acknowledged the first accused's possession and stated that he would be held responsible for all damage. The Sabha only authorized the complainant to endeavour to remove the paddy peaceably and if he met with any resistance directed him to resort to a Civil Court. The complainant endeavoured to take possession of the paddy forcibly with his servants and the acts complained of were done by the first accused and the petitioners in resisting this attempt to take possession and in maintaining the possession of the first accused.2. In the circumstances no ...
Krishnamachariar Vs. Seshadri Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ333
1. We think that the plaintiff, when a party to O.S. No. 1228 of 1897 ought to have put forward his mortgage as a defence pro tanto to that suit. Had he done so and had his mortgage been admitted or proved, the decree would have saved his rights thereunder. He, however, failed to plead his mortgage, and a decree for sale of the land was passed in which his mortgage right was not saved. He is barred by that decree, and under explanation 2 to Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, he cannot now raise a plea which he could and ought to have raised in that suit. The decree of the District Judge is, therefore, right, and we dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Narayanasami Reddi Vs. Osuru Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad548
1. This suit was tried by the District Munsif as a small cause suit and judgment was given for the plaintiff. On an application to this Court to reverse the District Munsif's decree, Subrahmania Ayyar, J., was of opinion that the decree should be set aside and the suit remanded for disposal according to law after further evidence had been taken. Boddam, J., was of opinion that the case was not one in which this Court ought to interfere by way of revision upon the ground that the defence set up by the defendant in this Court had not been raised in the Court of First Instance and that the petition ought to be dismissed.2. The defendant appealed under Article 15 of the Letters Patent. A preliminary objection was taken by the plaintiff to the hearing of the appeal that there bad been no judgment within the meaning of Article 15. We are of opinion that the adjudication by Subrahmania Ayyar and Boddam, J.T., is a judgment within the meaning of the article and we overrule the preliminary obje...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›