Chennai Court December 1910 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.
Biram Beni Ammal and ors. Vs. Syed ShumsuddIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ404
1. The suit is for possession of property. The plaintiffs and appellants before us previously brought O.S. No. 635 of 1900 against the same defendants Nos. 1 to 8 for the recovery of possession of the same property. The matters in dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were compromised and there was a decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The suit against the defendants Nos. 3 to 8 was withdrawn without permission to bring a fresh suit. In executing the decree against the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs were obstructed by the defendants 3 to 8 and the plaintiff's application to remove the obstruction was registered under Section 331 as a suit between the decree-holder as plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 8 as defendants. Both the lower courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 373 bars the suit. It is contended before us in second appeal that the above section only precludes the plaintiff 'from bringing a fresh suit' and that ...
The Hindus of Kannamapalaiyam Village Vs. Kaikkolar Christians of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ486
ORDER1. The Magistrate has found that the dispute about the right of the Christians to use the well is likely to lead to a breach of the peace at any time. That they have been till now held in check by Father Rondy is not a reason for holding that there is no likelihood of a breach of the peace, as that check may at any time prove ineffective, more particularly when it is found that the petitioners have not been protected in the exercise of their just rights for having obeyed him. It is also contended that the Christians have not exercised their rights within three months next before the commencement of the enquiry. The proceedings alleged to be initiated by the order of the District Magistrate on the 21st September were only a continuation of the proceedings which were commenced on the 20th May when Father Rondy presented his complaint. That complaint is the institution of the enquiry under the proviso to Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is found by the District Magi...
Arimuthu Chetty Vs. Vayapuri Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ505
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 87 of 1908 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Salem. Property of the judgment-debtors was attached in execution of another decree-against them in O.S. No. 35 of 1906 on the file of the District Court of Salem. It was sold by the District Court in execution of that decree. The purchaser made the deposit on the 17th September 1909 and the balance of the purchase-money was paid into court on the 29th September 1909. It must be taken, having regard to the decision in Ramanathan Chettyar v. Subramania Sastrial I. L. R. (1903) M. 179, that the assets were realized only on the 29th of September 1909 within the meaning of Section 295 of the old code. There is no doubt a change in the corresponding provision of Section 73 of the present code. But so far as the question before me is concerned the change in the language is immaterial. The purchase-money becomes the asset of the judgment-debtor only when the bala...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›