Chennai Court July 1903 Judgments
Krishnamurthi Aiyar Vs. Narayanasawmy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ295
1. It is obvious that the petitioner alleges that the acts complained of were improperly done by the counter-petitioner and the claim in execution of the decree by attachment of moveable properties in supposed pursuance of an order of the court.2. We are clear that these allegations raise questions relating to the execution of the decree and are to be enquired in to under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code and not by separate suit;3. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct that he do take the petition on his file and dispose of it according to law.4. The costs will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!Sankararamier and anr. Vs. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ425
1. The decision appealed from appears to be in direct conflict with the decision of the Full Bench case in Ratnam, v. Papa 13 M.L.J. R 292. where it was held that the evidence referred to in Section 409 of the Civil Procedure Code is confined to evidence in proof or disproof of the pauperism of the applicant and 'not evidence as to the merits of the case.' That decision is contrary to the decisions in Kamrakh Nath v. Sunder Nath I.L.R. 20 A. 299 and Vijindra Thirtha Swami v. Sudhindra Thirtha Swami I.L.R. 19 M. 199 and adopts the ruling in K. Ranganayaki Ammal v. K. Venkatachellapati Nayudu I.L.R. 4 M 323. In this case the Judge ordered further particulars to be given of the fraud alleged in the plaint after having heard the parties under. Section 409 and finally dismissed the petition because he held that after the petition had been amended by the entry of the particulars ordered it was not more explicit than the original petition had been.2. We think that where the petition contains ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadegan Alias Swami Chetti Vs. Periya Munusami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ477
1. The joint family consisted of the 2nd defendant's father, the 2nd defendant, and the plaintiffs who are the sons of the 2nd defendant. In execution of a decree obtained on a mortgage bond executed by the 2nd defendant alone, which admittedly did not bind the family, the right, title and interest of the 2nd defendant in a specific portion of the family property, was sold and was purchased, by the 1st defendant who was the decree-holder, and it may be assumed that right title and interest of the 2nd defendant's sons also.2. On the principle of the decision reported in Chinna Sanyasi v. Suriya I.L.R. 5 M. 196 it was open to the remaining co-parcener viz., the father of the 2nd defendant, if he so chose to affirm the court sale in respect of the moiety of the specific land, and thus become divided in respect of such portion only of the family land, in which case the purchaser need not be driven to enforce his purchase by bringing a suit for a general partition of the whole of the family...
Tag this Judgment!Sesha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Nagarathna Lala, Minor by His Next, Bhavani B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ362
ORDER1. In my opinion the respondent in a Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the decision of a single judge of this Court in a mofussil case cannot apply for security being demanded from the appellant for costs. Section 540 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only to appeals preferred to the High Court from Subordinate Courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction Sabapathi Chetti v. Narayanasami Chetti I.L.R. 25 M. 555 and not to appeals preferred to the High Court under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of one of its fudges. Assuming that it would be competent to the High Court to pass such a rule, no rule has been made under Section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing the making of such an application. It is also conceded that no such rule was in force in the old Sudder Court, and that being so, Section 9 of the Charter Act cannot be relied upon in support of this application. I am unable to accede to the argument that Section 467 of the Civil Procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Aiyar and anr. Vs. Vythinatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ448
1. The plaintiff claiming as the daughter's son and legal representative of one Ramien, deceased, instituted O.S. No. 26 of 1890 (on the tile of the District Munsif's Court at Trichinopoly) for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of about 50 cawnies of land for Rs. 250. The mortgage was alleged to have been made by Ramien, under an instrument dated 18th March 1856. The defendants, while denying the plaintiff's relationship to Ramien as well as the mortgage sued upon, pleaded that 14 out of the 50 cawnies had been usufructuarily mortgaged to them by Ramien for Rs. 500, under an instrument dated 5th February 1853 and that the same had been sold to them subsequently as also the remaining 36 and odd cawnies.2. Without deciding the question of the plaintiffs relationship to Ramien the suit was dismissed on the ground that the mortgage sued upon was not proved, and was in fact, fictitious and the decision was confirmed on appeal. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal and claimed a de...
Tag this Judgment!Achuta Bhatta Vs. Manjunathayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ358
1. We are of opinion that a suit for a declaration of right in respect of immoveable property is not a suit in which the subject ''matter of the claim does not admit of valuation' within the meaning of Article 35 of the rules framed under the Legal Practitioners Act. Such a suit falls within Art'. 31 and a reference to Rule 33 which defines the expression, the amount or value of the claim occurring in Rules 31 and 32, clearly shows that Rule 31 is not confined to cases in which Court fees are payable ad valorem. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative....
Tag this Judgment!Kelu Nedungadi and anr. Vs. Krishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ374
1. We are of opinion that the Malayalam words mentioned in the order of reference do not impose on a jenmi the obligation of proving ' some special exigency' as a condition precedent to his right to recover ' on demand' before twelve years.2. We think S.A. No. 1665 of 1898 was rightly decided and we dissent from the decision in Mahomed v. Ali Koya I.L.R. 14 M 76 that 'special exigency' must be proved....
Tag this Judgment!Vengan Poosari and anr. Vs. Chinnu Alias Patchamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ290
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. This is not a suit for the establishment of the first plaintiff's right to the office of Poojari. The claim herein is distinctly limited to a building called Semmuniswamy temple situated within the boundaries set forth in the plaint and certain articles contained therein. The defendant inter alia contended that the property was not in the plaintiff's possession but in that of the defendant and it was with reference to this contention that the 4th issue was framed, viz., ' Whether plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint temple and the room and articles mentioned in plaint item No. 2 'I Can they sue for mere injunction.'2. While finding upon the evidence that the plaintiffs had been prevented from having access to the place from 1895 and that the place was locked up by the defendant and continued so ever since, the District Munsif was of opinion that as prior thereto pooja had been performed by the 2nd plaintiff, possession should be presumed to be still with t...
Tag this Judgment!Rungiah Goundan and ors. Vs. G. Nanjappa Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ412
1. In A.A.O. No. 111 of 1902.--This is a matter arising in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 74 of 1896 which was brought by the appellants against the respondents. The decree bears date the 10th November 1897 and the portion of the decree that is now sought to be executed runs as follows: 'That in default of the defendants or any of them paying the sum of Rs. 47,852 with further interest thereon at 7per cent. per annum from date of suit to date of payment on or before the 10th May 1898, the hypothecated property hereinafter described or a sufficient portion thereof be sold and that the proceeds of such sale, etc.' At the time of the passing of the said decree there was pending in the same court another suit No. 82 of 1896 which was brought by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellants and in which they claimed Rs. 93,973-2-10 from the appellants. On the 27th November 1897 an application was made by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants) in O.S. No. 74 under Section 243, Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›