Chennai Court November 1911 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.
Ramaswami Ayengar Vs. Raja Muthuswami Aiyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.799
1. For arrears of revenue due to Government, the first defendant, a Village Munsif, attached a bull which the plaintiff alleges belonged to him. The Government revenue being subsequentlu paid, the plaintiff got back his bull. The present suit against the Village Munsif and the Government is for damages sustained by him, both as actual pecuniary damages sustained and damages for injury to his reputation. The District Munsif found that the bull belonged to the defaulter and not to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Munsif's decree without deciding whether the bull belonged to the plaintiff or not. The Judge is wrong in holding that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove any malice to be entitled to recover damages actually sustained by him by the attachment of his property for revenue due by a stranger. The second appeal is not pressed as against Government, as indeed it could not lie, there being no cause of action against Government.2. We reverse the decr...
Adusupalli Venkata Row Vs. Marikruthu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.313
1. The judgment-creditor had applied in time for bringing one of the representatives of David Pillai, namely, the second respondent, Swami Pillai, on record and that application was granted. That being so, the cases of Ramanuj Sewak Singh v. Ringu Lal 3 A.P 517 and Krishnaji Janardan v. Murarry Rao 12 B.P 48 with which we agree, show that there is no bar to the other representatives of the David Pillai, viz., respondents Nos. 3 and 4 baiag also brought on the record on the present application. We may say that we do not understand the ground on which the learned District Judge distinguishes these oases. We order that Marikrathu Ammal and Kalanithi Ammal be brought on the record as legal representatives of David Pillai and set aside the order of the District Judge with costs to be paid by the respondents....
Ambalam Pakkiya Udayan Vs. Right Reverend J.M. Bathe, S.J., D.D. and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.599
1. The suit in this ease was instituted by the Bishop of Trichinopoly and the Vicar of the Church of Thr6e Kings in the village of Pallithaman in the District of Madura for a declaration that the Church and its properties have been dedicated to and stand impressed with trusts for the worship of God in accordance with the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, that the 2nd plaintiff is the trustee of the Church and its properties subject to the supervision and control of the 1st plaintiff and for possession of the same from the defendants, who, unlawfully, took possession about the year 1902 or 1903. The defendants are Christians of the village who, according to the plaintiff, were formerly Roman Catholics but who seceded from their allegiance to the Roman Church about the year 190 and became members of the Syro-Chaldean Church. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants never had any rights of management over the Church or its properties while they were in communion with...
Tej Mal Sowcar Vs. Jagappilla Papayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.788
1. In this case the 1st and 2nd defendant each obtained a decree for money against the third defendant, and certain property was attached as belonging to the judgment-deptor in execution of each of the decrees. When the attachment was made at the instance of the 1st defendant, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant, who are sisters, put in a claim petition urging that the property attached belonged originally to their mother, the 3rd defendant's wife, that they had succeeded as heirs and that, therefore, 1st defendant had no right to attach it as belonging to the 3rd defendant. No claim-petition was put in when the second defendant made the attachment. This suit is instituted by the plaintiffs, three out of four sisters, for a declaration 'that the attachments made by 1st and 2nd defendants are not valid' on the ground that the property does not belong to the 2nd defendant.2. In issue was raised as to whether the suit was not bad for misjoinder of the causes of action on the grou...
Adusupatti Venkata Rao Executor to the Estate of the Deceased Ramanu J ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.795
1. The District Judge is wrong in holding that because the Administrator General, who had obtained Probate pf the Will of the deceased father of David Pillai, the judgment-debtor, was not a party to the execution-petition under which attachment was ordered in September, 1900, the attachment mast be treated as illegal and cannot form the basis of a sale. The attachment, as we understand, was of the interest of David Pillai in the lands of the testator situated in a particular locality on the supposition that David was solely entitled to those lands including the property in dispute. Subsequent thereto, the estate has been divided among the different devisees and legatees, the property now sought to be sold falling to the share of David Pillai. That being so, it, is difficult to see why the attachment, which still subsists, should be regarded as of no avail with respect to property attached to Divid Pillai. It, does not seem to us to be reasonable to hold the attachment of a judgment-deb...
ismail Ghami Ammal Vs. Katinna Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ154
ORDER1. We think that in the state of facts which are found in this case the possession of the Receiver appointed on the 4th April 1909 may, for the purpose of Section 145 of the Cr. P. C, be properly regarded as possession on behalf of the party who should ultimately be found by the Magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th April just as for purposes of limitation the possession of the Receiver is held to be the possession of the patty entitled to possession-Raja of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah I.L.R. (1902) M. 410 and Jayanti Kumar Mookerjee v. Middleton I.L.R. (1900) C. 785.2. To hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the Receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for possession and probable breach of the peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. We must, therefore, dismiss the petition....
ismail Ghami Ammal Vs. Katima Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.215
ORDER1. We think, that in the state of facts which are founded in this case the possession of the Receiver appointed on the 4th April 1909, may, for the purpose of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, be properly regarded as possession on behalf of the party who should ultimately be found by the Magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th April, just as, for purposes of limitation, the possession of the Receiver is held to be the possession of the party entitled to possession, Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah 26 MP. 410 and Joyanti Kumar Mookerjee v. Middleton 27 C.P 785 : 4. C.W.N. 562.2. To hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the Receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for possession and probable breach of peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. We must, therefore, dismiss this petition....
Ambalam Pakkiya Udayan Vs. Right Reverend J.M. BarThe S.J.D.D. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.599; (1913)24MLJ630
1. The suit in this case was instituted by the Bishop of Trichinopoly and the Vicar of the Church of Three-kings in the Village of Pallithamam in the District of Madura for a declaration that the church and its properties have been dedicated to, and stand impressed with trusts for the worship of God in accordance with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church that the 2nd plaintiff is the trustee of the church and its properties subject to the supervision and control of the 1st plaintiff and for possession of the same from the defendants, who unlawfully took possession about the year 1902 or 1903. The defendants are Christians of the Village who according to the plaintiffs were formerly Roman Catholics, but who seceded from their allegiance to the Roman Church about the year 1902 and became members of the Syro Chaldean Church. The plaint alleges that the defendants never had any rights of management over the Church or its properties while they were in communion with the ...
Gunniah Vencatachalapathy Aiyar Vs. Perumal Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.133
1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in this suit were the usufructuary mortgagees of certain properties. The first defendant, who was entitled to one-third share of that right, mortgaged his right to one Ponnaiyen and Ponnaiyen mortgaged his right to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage and made Ponnniyen and Ponnaiyen's mortgagor, the first defendants, as well as the second and third defendants, parties to the suit. Certain other persons, to whom it is unnecessary to refer, were also made parties, and a decree was passed in his favour. The construction of this decree is in question in this suit. The plaintiff contends that not only Ponnaiyen's mortgage-right but the 1st defendant's 1/3rd interest also in the property was directed to be sold by the decree. The defendants contend, on the other hand, that only Ponniyen's right was directed to be sold. After the decree, an order for sale was passed. It is not disputed that this order directed the rights both of Ponniyen...
Jayanti Kistappa Vs. Jayanti Chinnapiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.188
Wallis, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for a debt, averring in his plaint that the defendant had failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. He also obtained an order for attachment before judgment. Before the attachment issued, the defendant paid the amount sued for into Court and the defendant drew it out. Order XXIV, Rule 4(2) requires that when a defendant pays money into Court and the plaintiff accepts it in full satisfaction, the plaintiff shall present to the Court a statement to that effect, and such statement shall be filed and the Court shall pass judgment accordingly, and in directing by whom the costs of each party are to be paid the Court shall consider which of the parties is most to blame for the litigation. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff his costs, and the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed this part of the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff should either have made a demand or given sufficient reasons for his failure to do so. The pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »