Chennai Court December 1909 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.
Palamalai Mudaliar Alias Palamalai Pillai Vs. the South Indian Export ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ211
Wallis, J.1. The question whether the sale in favour of the defendant, Exhibit II, is voidable at the instance of the vendor's creditors depends on the inference to be drawn from a number of circumstances attending the sale. The plaintiffs had obtained a decree in the High Court against Madarsa Rowthar and Sheik Davood on the 21st October 1902. On the 22nd January 1903 a petition was put in for transfer of the decree to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Negapatam for execution, and on the 25th March 1903 and the 26th March 1903 two execution petitions were put in the Subordinate Judge's Court for execution, Exhibits B and B1, praying for the arrest of the defendants in the suit and for the attachment of their properties including the property which is the subject of the present suit. In support of these petitions an affidavit, Exhibit B2, was sworn by the plaintiffs' agent on the 20th March 1903 and filed on the 28th March 1903, in which it was alleged that some of the properties were m...
Kshetrabaro Bissoyi of Namanagaram Vs. Sobhanapuram Harikristna Naidoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ417
1. The plaintiff in both the suits out of which these appeals arise is the Bissoyi of Namanagaram. He in 1891 and 1899 granted two leases of certain land at rates of rent ordinary and reasonable in amount but permanently fixed. In 1904 he sued to set the leases aside and to recover possession of the lands on the ground that the leases were invalid inasmuch as the lands were service inam lands. The suits were dismissed and the plaintiff appeals. Under Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895 the emoluments attached by the state to certain offices 'shall not be liable to be transferred or encumbered.' The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the lands in suit are such emoluments and that the grant of a permanent lease amounts to a transfer within the meaning of the section. We shall assume for the sake of argument that the section applies to the lands in suit. The question then is what is the nature of the disposition which is prohibited by the words ' shall not be liable to be trans...
Valeswara Iyer and ors. Vs. Muthukrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.686; (1910)21MLJ57
Miller, J.1. This case has been argued at great length and with great ability, but I do not find it necessary to deal with all the points which counsel on either side have had to lay before us.2. I shall first dispose of the question of res judicata which lies at the threshold of the case, and the ground on which I hold that there is no bar may be stated in a very few words. The suit of 1853 was heard and decided by a Mufti Sadar Amin, the pecuniary limit of whose jurisdiction would have precluded him from trying the present suit. His decision cannot, therefore, debar us from trying the questions which he decided. Mr. Sundara Aiyar contended that it is not open to us to interfere with the injunction issued by the Sadar Amin, but it is not necessary to decide how far that contention is sound because no party to the present suit is within the prohibition of that injunction : the only defendant who was a party to the suit of 1853 is dead. It is then contended that in as much as the civil ...
Muthusami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Masilamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.42
Sankran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of certain properties claiming to be the reversioner of Avudanayaga Mudaliar, the last male owner thereof, from the alienees of the 1st defendant who claims to be, but according to the plaintiff is not according to Hindu Law, his widow, as at the time of her marriage and till her husband's death she was a Christian, or in the event of the 1st defendant's title as widow to the property-being established, for a declaration that the alienations by her are not binding on the reversioners. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has established the relationship alleged by him and that the alienation by the first defendant was not made for purposes which would justify a widow under Hindu Law from alienating the property. The only question, therefore, for decision is whether the 1st defendant is the widow of the deceased entitled to his property under the Hindu Law. In that case the plaintiff would not now be entitled ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›