Chennai Court March 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.
Chockalingam, Minor by His Mother and Guardian, Ammakutti Ammal Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1141a
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the appellant's claim is res judicata by reason of the order for attachment passed on the execution application, The decree against the defendants was that he should pay the decree amount out of the assets of the deceased father in his hands. On the execution application, notice under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code, was issued, but that was merely a notice to show cause why the decree should not be executed. The defendant did not appear and the order for attachment was passed. As was pointed out in Ramasami Naik v. Ramasami Chetti; 2 M.L.T. 167 'when it is endeavoured to obtain execution of something, not granted by the decree, mere notice to the defendant that further Execution is to be applied for, will not be sufficient to make the order res judicata against him. And where the application is not for the execution of something which has been directed to be done by any decree or order, so as ipso facto to carry information as t...
In Re: C.L. Cantho and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.845
Wallis, J.1. In this case, the Official Assignee has taken out a garnishee summons calling on the Chartered Bank to show cause why they should not deliver to him Rs. 1,330-9-3, being the balance of the insolvents' current account and four trade bills dated the 11th August 1908. According to the agreed statement of facts, these four bills had been sent to the Bank to be discounted on the 11th August, but the Bank had not discounted them on 13th August, the date of the vesting order. As regards these bills it seems clear that no creditor debt had arisen in respect of them on the date of the insolvency and that the Bank can have no claim to set them off. Nor can the Bank claim to retain them by virtue of their lien as Bankers. Such lien under Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act is only for the general balance of account, and the balance at the date of insolvency was in the insolvents' favour. The Official Assignee is therefore, entitled to succeed as regard] these four notes. As regard...
Muhamad HusaIn Rowther and ors. Vs. Muhamad Abubakar Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.427; (1910)20MLJ699
1. The finding of the Sub-ordinate Judge upon the second issue sent down is, as we read it, a finding of a customary right in the plaintiffs to use the tank, with this limitation that for the purposes of this use they had a right of access to the tank on the northern and eastern sides, but no right of access on the western side. This being so, there is no customary right in the plaintiffs which has been infringed by the erection by the defendants of the fence on the western side. We cannot accede to Mr. Govindaraghava Ayer's contention that the finding of a customary right to use involves a general right of access. There is no reason why a customary right should not be limited in the way, as we read the finding, the Subordinate Judge intended to limit it.2. On the first issue the Judge finds that the property in the tank is in the Government and that there has been a dedication to the use of the public in general. It is not the plaintiffs' case that they have any rights as members of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›