Chennai Court August 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.
Vythilinga Mudaliar Vs. Ramachendra Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ379
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Sowrirajaperumal temple of Tirukkannapuram in theNannilam Taluq of the Tanjore District, wss entitled to receive from the Government an annual money allowance spoken of as Mohini. This allowance used to be disbursed from the Public Treasury till 1863. In that year the Government made another arrangement with reference to the allowance. The temple itself having owned in different villages ryotwary lands liable to pay to Government a total assessment of Rs. 705-9-2, the institution was exonerated from the liability to pay this assessment and the liability of the Government to pay the allowance to the temple was fro tanto put an end to. With reference to the remainder of the allowance the assessment due to Government in respect of certain ryotwary lands in four villages was directed, to be paid over thereafter to the trustees of the temple. Sami Naik who was taken to be the then holder of these lands executed a Muchalika to Government undertaking to pay the assessm...
Narasayya Vs. Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ12
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner has been ordered by the District Munsif under Section 359, C.P.C., to be sent to the Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The counter-petitioner obtained a decree in O.S. No 67 of 1902 and in execution applied to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner then applied on the 26th September 1902, to be declared an insolvent. Notice was given to the creditors about 17 in number. There was an enquiry under Section 350 and as the result of that enquiry an order was passed under Section 351, C.P.C., declaring the petitioner an insolvent, but there was no order of discharge. A receiver was appointed. When the receiver proceeded to take possession a claim was advanced to one of the properties now in dispute by one Narasarazu. The Receiver applied to the Court for assistance to take possession and all the properties including the properties in dispute were placed in Ms possession. When the properties in dispute which are included in the schedule were bein...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›