Chennai Court March 1916 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.
Godimella Rangamma and ors. Vs. Panchangam Narasimhacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.116
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint sites (a) and (b) for himself and for the other agraharamdars of the village (defendants Nos. 3 to 13) on the following allegations: (a) That the agraharamdars gave the suit sites for temporary residence to one Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu, and (b) that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in wrongful possession after the death of Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu.2. The reliefs prayed for are for ejecting the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit sites and for delivery of possession of the said suit sites jointly to the plaintiff and to the defendants Nos. 3 to 13.3. One of the defences raised by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was, that the present suit is barred as res judicata by reason of the decision in a prior suit brought by another agraharamdar, Verikatacharana Charyulu (Original Suit No. 78 of 1910 of the Gudivada District Munsif's Court). The present 1st...
Yaddanapudi Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Vs. Repalle Seetharamaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.2
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of. an application under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code in restitution. The defendants were the petitioners in restitution and they are the respondents in this Court. The plaintiff is the appellant. He got a decree in Original Suit No. 381 of 1905 of the Gudivada District Munsif's Court for ejecting the defendants, who were his tenants, the decree awarding him the mesne profits from Fasli 1313 till delivery of possession. The decree was passed on the 23rd December 1907. He got possession in execution of that decree in 1908. But the case went up on second appeal to the High Court and the suit was then wholly dismissed with costs. The defendants then applied under Section 144 to be restored to possession and they got back possession in Fasli 1321. They also applied for recovery of mesne profits wrongfully received by the plaintiff in Fadis 1318, 1319 and 1320. The plaintiff claimed to set off against the mesne profits the arrears o...
Paramasivam Pillai Vs. Periyanayagath Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.503
1. We must admit that there is much to be said for the contention of the appellant that an inferior Court has no power of review except when it is granted by Statute. [See Hurra Fukeer Doss Bera v. Fukeer Doss Bera 20 W.R. 180 and Drew v. Willis. (1891) 1 Q.B. 450: 39 W.R. 310 and Damodra Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Desika Ganana Pandara Sannadhi 3 Ind. Cas. 463.] But it is unnecessary to express a final opinion on this matter, as we think that the learned Judge from whose decision this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed had a discretion to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we have also the like discretion, and we do not think that this is a fit case to so interfere.2. In so declining, we must guard ourselves from intending to express a considered view that the order of the District Munsif passed under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act is subject to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If it is not subject to review under that sectio...
A.A.V. Periakaruppan Chetty Vs. Chidambara Tambiran Alias Sivagnana De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.443
1. We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that because the order of 1911 recognizing the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree was passed ex parte, that order cannot be res judicata against the judgment-debtor. This is opposed to the decision in Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar 22 Ind. Cas. 8992. The only point for consideration is in the words of Mookerjee, J., in the decision of Mon Mohan Karmakar v. Dwarka Nath Karmakar 7 Ind. Cas. 53 whether the judgment-debtor allowed 'an order for execution to be passed against him at one stage of the proceeding, when he had an opportunity to contest the validity of that order.' If he so allowed such an order to be passed, he 'cannot be permitted' in subsequent proceedings in that suit to contest the validity of that order and to re-open questions which he ought to have met in the former proceeding.3. We respectfully differ from the view of the learned Judge (from whose decision this Letters Patent Appeal has been pref...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›