Chennai Court September 1914 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.
V.E.N.K.R.M.V.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty Vs. Tirunarayana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad547; 25Ind.Cas.592
1. The petitioner in this case applied for rateable distribution. It was objected to on the ground that the decree obtained by the petitioner was not against the same judgment-debtor against whom, execution had been levied by the counter-petitioner and the assets realised. The Subordinate Judge upheld this contention and dismissed the application. This revision petition is against that order.2. A preliminary objection was taken before us that we should not interfere as under Section 73, Clause (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner had his remedy by a regular suit.3. Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar argued that the Court had jurisdiction, as was decided in a number of cases, and that the present case was a fit one for our interference. We feel no doubt that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition. See Tiruchittambala Chetti v. Seshayyangar 4 M. 388; Viraraghava v. Parasurama 15 M. 372 and Sri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand 4 Ind. Cas. 509 : 32 Ma. 334 : 5 M.L.T. 125 ...
Vusa Chandrakantam and ors. Vs. Vusa Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad554; 25Ind.Cas.685
1. This is a suit to establish respondent's (plaintiff's) right to, and to recover possession (after partition) of, a one-third share in certain inam lands attached as emoluments to a fanning service' performed by dancing girls to the god Sri Visweswara Swami in the village of Pedda-puram. The District Munsif gave a decree for recovery of possession and for a declaration of plaintiff's title during his life-time. The Subordinate Judge has amended the decree by removal of the limitation and has given a decree practically as sued for.2. Plaintiff's title rests on a kararnama, Exhibit A, executed in 1854 by one Syamala, who then held the office and emoluments. She had at the time two daughters (from whom appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are descended) and a son of a deceased daughter (the present plaintiff). To these three persons jointly she made over all her properties (including the service inam lands), directing at. the same time (according to the plaint) that the two daughters should continue...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›