Chennai Court July 1904 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.
Venkataramana Chartar Vs. Meenat Chisundararam Aiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1904
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.193
1. The plaintiff's case is that he is entitled to certain lands under a mortgage decree, obtained by him in O.S. No. 448 of 1892. The lands were subject to a mortgage in favour of the defendant. In execution of his decree, the plaintiff brought certain lands to sale and purchased them subject to the defendant's mortgage. The sale was proclaimed on November 27th, 1895. The plaintiff himself became the purchaser at the Court auction and a sale certificate of the lands purchased was granted to him in January, 1896. In August, 1897, the plaintiff deposited in Court the amount of the defendant's mortgage and asked for the delivery of the lands. The defendant declined to give delivery upon the ground that certain items of the property, which the plaintiff claimed upon the ground that they were included in the sale certificate, were not included in the mortgage on which the plaintiff had sued, or in the decree which he had obtained. In 1900, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for posse...
Atmakuru Narasamma Vs. Atmakuru Venkata Narasayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ418
1. No doubt the decree does not contain any direction for sale. But subsequent to the passing of the decree, there were applications by the decree-holder for sale in execution of the decree, and in spite of the defendant's objections, sale was ordered, the decree having been construed as allowing a sale.2. The orders so construing the decree estop the respondent from raising any contention inconsistent with those orders at has been repeatedly laid down.3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the application be replaced on the file and proceeded with in accordance with law. The respondent will pay the appellant's costs in this Court....
Virabadran Chetty and ors. Vs. Nataraja Desikar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ329
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The appellants obtained a decree against the late Pandara Sannadhi of Tiruvannamalai Mutt in the Madura District for moneys lent to him. In execution of the decree certain gold and silver pooja articles &c;, were attached and seized. The respondent, the present head of the Mutt, who had been made a party to the execution proceedings as the representative of the deceased, raised a contention that the attached articles were not liable to be sold in execution of the decree as they were not assets of the deceased but property appertaining to the Mutt. With reference to the investigation of the claim thus made, the appellants applied to the Subordinate Judge of Madura East to summon the respondent as a witness for the appellants. The respondent thereupon applied to the Subordinate Judge to take his examination on commission suggesting at the same time that he was not in a position to give, of his own personal knowledge, any evidence material to the questions at issue...
Mahadeva Row Subban Rao Mohite Vs. Sethuram Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ471
Charles Arnole White, C.J.1. This is a petition against an order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing an application for a temporary injunction made by the plaintiff in a suit for the recovery of property, immoveable and moveable, including valuable jewels. In the Court below the Subordinate Judge granted an interim injunction and directed notice to issue to the defendants. After hearing the defendants he dismissed the application, but made an order purporting to continue the interim injunction pending the appeal to this Court. The plaintiff has appealed against the order of the Sub-ordinate Judge dismissing the application for a temporary injunction and his appeal has been admitted and notice of his application for an interim injunction pending the hearing of the appeal has been directed to issue to the defendants. The question which has been raised is, has this Court jurisdiction pending the return of the notice to make an interim order. It seems to me that it has. It is quite clear t...
Rangasamy Naicken Vs. Tirupati Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ413
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 485 of 1901 obtained a decree against the respondent who was the 2nd defendant therein and his father for the payment of a sum of money lent to the father and alleged to have been paid for the marriage of the respondent. The suit was on a promissory note executed by the father alone. The plaint contained a prayer for a personal decree against both the defendants. Neither of them appeared or contested the claim. A decree was passed as prayed for. An application to set aside the decree was made by the respondent, but the application was rejected as he failed to comply with the terms of the order which directed him to furnish security. The father of the 1st defendant is dead. An application was once before made to execute the decree against the 2nd defendant and he was arrested in pursuance of the order then passed to execute the decree. The amount was not then realized. The plaintiff now applies to execute the decree and the District Judge has held that the d...
Krishnamachariar (Minor) by His Next Friend, Andalammal Vs. Rukmani Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ370
1. The minor appellant's (petitioner's) father, the plaintiff in the suit agreed by Exhibit I not to prosecute the suit against the respondent, the sixth defendant, and even if a decree were passed, not to execute the decree on the ground that he had discovered that the property had been sold to her by the first defendant. The suit was accordingly not defended by the sixth defendant. Nevertheless the property came to be included in the decree.2. The father did not execute the decree and on his death an application was made on behalf of his son a minor to execute the same.3. The Judge dismissed the application. We entirely agree with the judge that the letter Exhibit I is genuine. It is contended that even in this view it cannot be admitted in evidence because it requires registration as affecting immoveable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees. We are unable to agree with the contention that this Exhibit I was intended as a release of the interest of the deceased plain...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›