Chennai Court October 1915 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.
C. Balaji Rao Sahib Vs. Harirama Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.39
1. In this case, the decree, execution of which is sought, is dated 7th November 1902. It appears that the first application for execution was made on the 7th July 1905. Then there was a second application in 1906 and a third application in 1908 and after the new Civil Procedure Code came into force, an application was made on the 18th April 1911. There were some more applications thereafter, one on the 4th July 912, another on the 22nd October 1912, the last one being on the 8th May 1913.2. The question raised before us by the learned Vakil for the appellant is whether the effect of Order XXXIV, rules 4 and 5, of the new Civil Procedure Code is that the decree-holder must apply for a final decree under the provisions of the new Code before there can be any execution. The decree in the case was made long before the passing of the new Code and there had also been several applications in execution before the Code came into force. The contention of the appellant's learned Vakil amounts to...
Karri Narasayya Vs. Thavvala Nageswara Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad789; 31Ind.Cas.209
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. As regards the burden of proof the authority of the decision of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Vegoti Chengiah v. Putta Ramudu (1914) M.W.N. 367 relied on by the Subordinate Judge has been strengthened by the decisions of Division Bench in Kidambi Jagannathacharyulu v. Pidipite Kufumbarayadu 25 Ind. Cas. 891 and Ravulapati Papi Reddi v. Nanduru Peda Venkatacharyulu 26 Ind. Cas. 67 : (1914) M.W.N. 794. My opinion contra in earlier cases is not, therefore, the predominating or prevailing opinion in this Court.2. If the burden of proving that the inamdar did not own the kudivaram at the time of the inam grant lay on the defendants, the Subordinate Judge holds that they have not discharged that burden. He refers to various circumstances and pieces of documentary evidence in paragraphs 12 to 14 of his judgment to support his conclusion in favour of the inamdar. Even if he has misconstrued a portion of the documentary evidence or ignored important evidence in the case (as conte...
Tirumalanadham Surayya Vs. Tirumalanadham Bapirazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad486; 31Ind.Cas.335
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I am satisfied from a perusal' of Exhibit A that the contract between the parties was, that to discharge the loan of 30,000 burnt tiles made to the defendants by the plaintiff in May 1905, the same number of properly-burnt tiles (not the identical 30,000 tiles after they had been, as intended, used by the 1st defendant and the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in covering the temple roof, but the same number of burnt tiles) should be returned to the plaintiff on demand after 20th January 1906 and if the tiles offered in satisfaction are not approved by the plaintiff and his four panchayatdars the identical tiles lent, though they had been used in covering the temple roof, should be brought down from that roof and returned to the plaintiff. I think this contract was broken when the defendants failed to offer to deliver thirty thousand properly-burnt tiles on the 21st January 1906, the plaintiff's right to make a demand on the defendants for satisfaction of his claim ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›