Chennai Court February 1913 Judgments
Suikeena Katum Sahiba Vs. Hajee Mahomed Abdul Aziz Badsha Sahib Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.239
Bakewell, J.1. Four applications have been made by four judgment-creditors of the plaintiff in this suit for payment to them of a fund to the credit of the suit which was paid into Court by the defendant in satisfaction of the decree.2. The dates of the decrees of the several creditors and of attachments of the fund are as follows:3. 26th October 1911, attachment before judgment in Suit No. 315 of 1911;4. 15th October 1912, decree;5. 6th November 1912, decree in Suit No. 381 of 1912;6. 9th November 1912, attachment;7. 30th August 1912, decree in Suit No. 11931 of 1912 on the file of Court of Small Causes of Madras;8. 12th September 1912, attachment;9. 16th September 1912, declare in Suit No. 12787 of 1912 of the same Court;10. 27th September 1912, attachment.11. It has been argued, firstly, that the applicants are entitled to adduce evidence that the decrees obtained by their rivals are fraudulent and void, and secondly, that their respective attachments are entitled to priority.12. On...
Tag this Judgment!Sanyasi Baritya and anr. Vs. Artaswaro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ321
1. The important question of law for decision in this case is how far an adjudication by a court on an oath made by one of the parties to the suit would make the matter or issue covered by the adjudication res judicata in a subsequent litigation between the same parties where the subject matter of the suit is different. The facts necessary for the decision may be very briefly stated. The defendant in persent suit instituted O.S. 625 of 09 in the District Munsif's Court of Aska against the present plaintiff for the recovery ob Ji cents, of land and for the execution of a conveyance of 4 cent, of lands including the 1| cents. His case was that the defendant in that suit, who is the present plaintiff in the present suit, had entered into an agreement of exchange with him whereby he was bound to convey the 4 cents, in question. The present defendant alleged in that suit that he had already obtained possession of 21/2 cents, out of the 4 cents. A written agreement was put in evidence. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Kandada Narasimhacharyalu Ayyavarlam Garu Vs. Kavicherla Ramabrahmam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.759; (1913)24MLJ656
1. It is argued before us that the facts admitted show prima facie that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession and the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is one of the Agraharamdars who obtained the village on Inam from the Nuzvid Zamindar. The presumption therefore is that they have only the melvaram rights. The origin of the defendant's tenancy is not shown and it is clear they have been in possession for a very long time. The plaintiff has however produced two muchilikas executed by the defendants in the two suits in which they admit they have no occupancy right. It is not however contended that they estop the defendants from setting up their occupancy right. The judge has taken them into consideration and found that the terms in these documents were newly introduced and therefore not of sufficient weight to rebut the presumption in the defendant's favour arising from the other circumstances in the cases. The other evid...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Companies Act, 1882
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.997
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether Bakewell, J., was right in holding that the appellants, Messrs. Lovelock and Lewes, were officers of the Malabar Timber Yards and Saw Mills, Limited, now in liquidation, within the meaning of Section 214 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. The case for the liquidator is that they are 'officers' in their capacity as auditors.2. In dealing with this case, we have derived considerable assistance from the very full affidavit which has been put in by Mr. Lewes, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Lovelock and Lewes, in answer to the affidavit of the liquidator filed in support of the summons. I have no reason to suppose that Mr. Lewes affidavit, in so far as it contains statements of facts, does not set out fully and fairly all the facts in so far as they were within his knowledge.3. In addition to the correspondence set out in Mr. Lewes' affidavit, we have some further letters, and the evidence of the Companies proceedings, put...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›