Chennai Court December 1912 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.
Lodd Govindoss Vs. Ramdoss Vishnudoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.752
1. This case comes before us in a somewhat curious form. It is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of Mr. Justice Bakewell, dismissing an application by the judgment-creditor's alleged legal representative for an order in the terms of an alleged compromise, which modified the terms of a decree which had been obtained by the judgment-creditor. Mr. Justice Bakewell dismissed the application on the ground that Order XXIII did not apply to execution proceedings, (See Rule 4). We agree with Mr. Justice Bakewell. Mr. Justice Bakewell also referred to Order XXI, Rule 2 and he held, with regard to this rule, that, as it relates only to payment or adjustment of a decree and a record thereof being made by the Court, it appeared to negative the recognition by the executing Court of anything less than the payment or adjustment. Before us the argument has turned upon the construction of Order XXI, Rule 2(1) and it has been contended, on behalf of the judgment-debtor, that Mr. Justice ...
Kesavasami Aiyar Vs. A.L.R.A.R.R.M. Narayana Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ228
Sankaran Nair, J.1. Kesava Aiyar was the cowledar of the plaint village under the Rajah of Ramnad. He bequeathed one-eighth of his interest in the village to the plaintiffs and seven-eighths to his son, Narasimier. The plaintiffs, however, never got possession of his shares of the property. Narasimier, who remained in possession, was treated by the landlord as sole cowledar, paid the Poruppu, payable on the whole land, took receipts in his sole name, issued pattahs to the cultivating tenants, and received muchilikas from them. He paid the plaintiff his share of the income. The plaintiff did not pay the landlord the rent payable by him on his share. It is also found that the Zamindar or his representatives in title had no knowledge of the plaintiff's interest in the land. Nara-simmier made default in payment of rent. Proceedings were taken against him under Act VIII of 1865 and the land was sold.2. The plaintiff now sues for a declaration that the wale does not affect his interest in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›