Chennai Court July 1917 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.
Chivikula Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Gollapudi Venkateswarulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad85; 44Ind.Cas.566
1. As regards the question whether Section 7 of the Limitation Act of 1908 has the effect of barring the application for execution, Execution Petition No. 1042 of 1912, the preponderance of authority is clearly in favour of the affirmative view. The question whether a major manager of a joint Hindu family can give a valid discharge of a decree-debt within the meaning of the above section so as to make the time run against the minor members of the family is fully discussed in Duraisawmi Sastrial v. Venkatarama Iyer (1911) 2 M.W.N. 420 where it was held that the dictum of Bashyam Aiyangar, J. in Periasami v. Krishna Ayyan 12 M.L.J. 166 could no longer be said to be good law having regard to the change of language in Section 7 of the new Limitation Act. The same view is enunciated by Sadasiva Aiyar and Spencer, JJ. in Planiandi Pillai v. Papathi Ammal 22 Ind. Cas. 76 : (1914) M.W.N. 159 and one of us followed Duraisawmi Sastrial v. Venkatarama Iyer 12 Ind. Cas. 503 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 420 i...
Alagappa Chettiar and ors. Represented by Agent, Subramania Iyer Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.836
1. In this ease there was a certain amount of money in deposit in Court and there was a dispute as to who was entitled to that money, the appellants whose claim was based on a certain trust-deed, or the judgment-debtor of the respondent. The appellants filed a suit to establish their right and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from drawing the money. Thereupon the respondent, on giving an undertaking to the Court, was allowed to draw the money. The appellants succeeded in establishing their title, and the only question now before us in the Letters Patent Appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the amount drawn by the respondent till the date when he paid back the amount. Mr. Justice Srinivasa Aiyangar has decided against the appellants' contention, on the ground that the undertaking given by the respondent did not provide for the payment of interest. We do not think that this is a conclusive factor. There is no express provision in the Civi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›