Chennai Court August 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.
Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar Vs. Veerabhadra Pillai Alias Rangaratnam Pil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad417
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit; to recover a temple office which is alleged to be hereditary in the plaintiff's family and which was purchased at a Court auction by the defendant in execution of a decree against a previous holder of the office. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the office was one of personal service and that the attachment and' sale were bad as opposed to Section 266 (t) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is now contended that such a suit is barred by the operation of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code and should have been dismissed. It is well settled that as between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder this is an objection which can only be taken in execution and it is also well settled that the provisions of Section 244 prohibit a suit by a party or his representatives against an auction purchaser to raise a question which as between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder must have been determined under that se...
Shivi Gowda and ors. Vs. Fernandes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad513
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands betwee the parties within the meaning of Article 85 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. If so, the defendants' plea of limitation fails. If not, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in respect of items in the account prior in date to three years before the institution of the suit.2. The District Judge held that Article 85 applied and the suit was not barred by limitation apparently on the ground that the accounts had been open and running for many years. He does not seem to have considered the question with reference to the words of the article 'Where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties.' The oral evidence affords little assistance as to the course of business between the parties and we have to rely in the main on the plaintiffs' accounts.3. The plaintiffs are merchants ...
In Re: the Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.392
ORDER1. (On Admission). I reject the appeal. If the decree-holder and the process-server agreed to let the accused go, there is no escape from custody. Queen Empress v. Muppan 18 M. 401 and Crown v. Ramasami Konan 18 M.L.J. 540 : 31 M. 271 : 8 Cri.L.J. 200 are cases of arrest on a Criminal charge and have no application....
Thattoli Kothilan Aliyamma Vs. C.K. Kunhammed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ946
1. The 1st defendant had a kanom dated the 1st June 1890. Poker, father of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant had an equity of redemption. In 1903 Poker executed a document called a deed of settlement. It was also signed by his children, including the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. Some of his children being minors, Poker signed the documents for them. One of the questions in the case is as to the effect of this document. The 2nd defendant has redeemed the kanom. The plaintiff claims possession from the 2nd defendant on payment of the amount due, Poker being dead. The and defendant contends that the plaintiff is only entitled to sue for his share. The decision rests on the true construction of Exhibit C, the deed of settlement. Paragraph No. 2 of the document declares that Poker's children are his heirs under the Mahomedan Law and entitled to succeed on his death. Paragraph No. 4 transfers to the present plaintiff all rights of management and control overs Poker's properties. Paragraph ...
Thottoli Kotilan Aliyumma Vs. Kunhammed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad527
1. The first defendant had a kanom dated the 1st June 1890. Pokker, father of the plaintiff and second defendant had the equity of redemption. In 1903 Pokker executed a document called a deed of settlement. It was also signed by his children including the plaintiff and the second defendant. Some of his children being minors, Pokker signed the document for them. One of the questions in the case is as to the effect of this document The second defendant has redeemed the kanom. The plaintiff claims possession from the second defendant on payment of the amount due, Pokker being dead. The second defendant contends that the plaintiff is only entitled to sue for his share. The decision rests on the true construction of exhibit C the deed of settlement. Paragraph No- 2 of the document declares that Pokker's children are his heirs under the Muhammadan Law entitled to succeed on his death. Paragraph No. 4 transfers to the present plaintiff all rights of management and control over Pokker's proper...
Rangasawmy Iyengar Vs. Annathurai Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.341
1. The suit is on a mort-gage executed by the father of the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant's daughter. The 1st defendant sued in Original Suit No. 407 of 1903 for a declaration that the mortgage had been discharged by his father before his death. The suit was dismissed on appeal. The question is whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, who are the sons of the 1st defendant, can plead discharge of the mortgagee as a defence to the present suit. It is the case of both sides. That the answer depends on the further question whether the 1st defendant conducted the suit of 1903 on behalf of his family as managing member thereof. The Subordinate Judge says there is nothing to show that be maintained that suit in his representative capacity as manager of the family and not in his individual capacity, and against this it is contended for the appellant that the circumstances found raise a presumption that the suit was on behalf of the family. These circumstances are that the intere...
Karuppiah Pillai Vs. T.R. Hari Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ849
1. The plaintiff had the vendor's lien in the property in the hands of the 2nd defendant, the purchaser, and it is contended that because the plaintiff accepted a pro-note for a portion of the purchase-money from the 1st defendant, the plaintiff must be held to have lost his lien to that extent. There is no authority which can be said to deal with the exact point raised, viz., whether the acceptance of a personal security by the holder of a lien from a person other than the purchaser destroys the lien. It is conceded that if the purchaser himself had given the pro-note that would not have ipso facto deprived the vendor of his lien. The question is really one of intention, whether the vendor intended to forego his lien or not. We do not see, in the absence of any circumstances pointing to that conclusion, why there should be a presumption in favor of abandonment of the lieu. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with vendor's lien, and it lays down that there should be such a...
Kuppana Gavundan Vs. Kumara Gavundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ961
1. The petitioner who was the decree-holder purchased properties in execution of the decree and was obstructed by the respondents. He obtained an order for delivery and an appeal against it was dismissed.2. Being resisted by the respondents when attempting to take delivery he applies under Order XXI, rule 98, of the C.P.C. The District Judge has dismissed the application, holding that the said rule has no application. As regards the 7th defendant against whom no decree was passed and who was therefore not the judgment-debtor the order is right. But we are unable to uphold it as regards the 1st defendant and Kumara Gavundan who is alleged to have purchased the property subsequeut to the attachment and while the same was pending. The purchaser of the attached property is the representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 47 of the New Code of Civil Procedure corresponding to Section 244 of the old Code. See Parama-nanda Das v. Mahabir Dossji I. L. R. (1896) M. 378; L...
Kuppana Kavundan Vs. Kumara Kavundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad450
1. The petitioner who was the decree-holder purchased properties in execution of the decree and was obstructed by the respondents He obtained an order for delivery and an appeal against it was dismissed. Being resisted by the respondents when attempting to take delivery he applies under Order XXI, Rule 98, of the Civil Procedure Code, The District Judge has dismissed the application holding that the said rule has no application. As regards the seventh defendant against whom no decree was passed and who was therefore not the judgment-debtor the order is right. But we are unable to uphold it as regards the first defendant and Kumara Goundan who is alleged to have purchased the property subsequent to the attachment and while the save was pending, The purchaser of the attached property is the representative of the judgment-debtor 'within the meaning of Section 47 of the new Code of Civil Procedure corresponding' to Section 244 of the old Code. See Paramananda Das v. Mahabeer Dossji (1897) ...
Muthu Subramania Chettyar Vs. Muthu Vardarajulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.710
1. The order ascertained the amount of mesne profits, but did not award interest, and the lower appellate Court, in allowing it, has added to the order, Harmanoiee Narain Singh v. Ram Prasad Singh 6 Cri.L.J. 462 ; Girish Chunder Lahir v. Sasi Sakhareswar Roy 33 C. 29 has no application, as there mesne profits were not ascertained in the decree. We modify the District Judge's order by directing the exclusion of interest. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. There will be no costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »