Chennai Court September 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.
Murugaiya Mudaliar Vs. Ayyadorai Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.286
1. This is an, independent appeal arising out of the same suit as Appeal Suit No. 14 of 1905. The present appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit, and only two contentions have been argued before us. (1) That he is entitled to recover his share of the areca nut trade from defendants Nos. 2, 8 and 12, that the one-twelfth share of the family property which accrued to him by survivorship on the death of the 3rd defendant must in any case be held free of the 8th defendant's attachment.2. The first point has been dealt with by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 22 of his judgment, and, in our opinion, rightly decided, against the plaintiff. His claim depends solely on the interested evidence of his own father, the 1st defendant, and an abstract of accounts said to have been prepared by him: and no explanation is offered for the failure of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to claim the money due to them long ago, especially, when it was so badly needed. The areca nut trade admitte...
Sadaya Pillai Vs. Amurthathachy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad533
1. The plaintiff had preferred a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code and his claim was disallowed under Section 281 of the Civil Procedure Code. Within a year of the order disallowing the present plaintiff's claim, the judgment-debt was satisfied otherwise than by the sale of the attached property. The present suit is now brought to establish the plaintiff's right to the properties as usufructuary mortgagee and for recovery of possession from the defendants. It has been held that the suit is barred under Article 11 of schedule II of the Limitation Act.2. Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar, appearing for the plaintiff who is the appellant before us, contends that the order under Section 283 enures in favour of or against the decree-holder or the claimant and not the judgment-debtor, The judgment-debtor, according to this contention, is not a party within the meaning of Section 283 and this contention would seem to be supported by the decisions in Kedarnath Chatterji v. Rakhal Das Chatt...
C.P. Govinda Taragan Vs. Veeran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1910
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.432; (1911)21MLJ941
1. This second appeal relates to the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 214 of 1906 in the District Munsif's Court of Walluvanad confirmed on appeal by the District Court of Calicut. The decree in the suit which was to redeem a kanom demise granted by the plaintiff to the defendants run in these terms : - 'This Court doth order and decree that upon payment by the plaintiff into court to the credit of the defendants 1 and 2 within 6 months from this date of the kanom amount Rs. 28-9-2 and value of improvements Rs. 157-13-0, less arrears of revenue Rs. 6-7-1, court costs Rs. 17-9-8, and future rent from 108a at 20 paras of paddy worth 8 annas a para and 4 annas 7 pies a year until execution of the decree, the defendants do deliver up to the plaintiff, or to such person as he may appoint in his behalf, all documents in their possession or power relating to the plaint mortgaged property and described in the schedule hereunto annexed and do retransfer the same to the plaintiff free from th...
E.R. Logan Vs. S.W. Romer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad343
ORDER1. We think the conclusion arrived at in the order under reference is right. By virtue of Notification No. 2770-F.B. of the 14th July 1904, any person appointed Justice of the Peace in any country beyond the limits of British India, shall have in proceedings against European British subjects all the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, upon Magistrates of the first class who are Justices of the Peace and European British subjects.2. The only question, as we understand the present case, is what powers are conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure upon such Magistrates. We think it is clear that they are the powers referred to in Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code as 'hereinafter respectively conferred upon them and specified in the third, schedule,' and styled 'ordinary powers,' and we think that the language of the notification cannot be read as including powers with which by virtue of Section 37 of the Code, a Magistrate of the first class may be i...
Vibudapriya Thirthaswami and Others Vs. Esuf Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ879
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are trustees of a Hindu temple. They have instituted the action to restrain the defendants, who represent the Mahomedan inhabitants of Udipi, by means of a permanent injunction from marching in procession through the portions marked III-A and III-B in the plan, Exhibit WWW. The Subordinate Judge has given them a decree as prayed for as regards I1I-B. The defendants made no claim to go in procession along III-B, and, as the respondents in the appeal before us, no attempt was made by them to object to that portion of the decree. As regards III-A, the Subordinate Judge has restrained the defendants from going in procession with music and reciting prayers while religious worship is going on in the plaintiffs' temple. Mr. Sundara Aiyar who argued the case for the plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, did not contest the right of the defendants to go in procession along III-A. But he argued against their right to go in procession with music or ...
Vibudapriya Thirthaswamy and ors. Vs. Esoof Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad28
Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are trustees of a Hindu temple. They have instituted the action to restrain the defendants who represent the Muhammadan inhabitants of Udipi by means of a permanent injunction from marching in procession through the portions marked IIIa and IIIb in the plan (exhibit WWW). The Subordinate Judge has given them a decree as prayed for as regards IIIb. The defendants made no claim to go in procession along IIIb, and as the respondents in the appeal before us no attempt was made by them to object to that portion of the decree. As regards IIIa the Subordinate Judge has restrained the defendants from going in procession with music and reciting prayers while religious worship is going on in the plaintiff's temple. Mr. Sundara Ayyar who argued the case for the plaintiffs who are the appellants before us did not contest the right of the defendants to go in precession along IIIa, But he argued against their right to go in procession with music or repeating p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›