Chennai Court August 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.
Lagadapati Venkata Nagabhushanam Vs. Garlapati Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ524
1. The first respondent brought a suit against the petitioner in the court of the Assistant Agent in the Godaveri district for dissolution of partnership and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default. Then the plaintiff appealed to the Agent, who without hearing the defendant in the suit set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed that the suit be restored to the file of the Assistant Agent to be heard and disposed of according to law. Against this order of the Agent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred asking us to direct the Agent to review his order according to Rule 8:- 'All decrees passed by the Government Agent on appeal from decrees of his subordinates shall be final the High Court having the power on special ground for him to require to review his judgment as may be directed by them' of the Agency Rules. But that rule applies only to decrees passed by the Government Agent and to judgments leading to decrees.2. A preliminary o...
Lagadapati Venkata Nagabushanam Vs. Garlapati Mahalakshmi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad325
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first respondent brought a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Agent in the Godavari district for dissolution of partnership and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default. Then the plaintiff appealed to the Agent who, without hearing the defendant in the suit, set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed that the suit be restored to the file of the Assistant Agent to be heard and disposed of according to law. Against the order of the Agent the present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred asking us to direct the Agent to review his order according to Rule 8 of the Agency Rules. But that rule applies only to decrees passed by the Government Agent and to judgments leading to decrees.2. A preliminary objection is taken that the order of the Agent directing that the suit be restored to file is not a decree within the meaning of the Agency Rules. We think that this contention is sound. The point has been decid...
Narayana Iyer Vs. Singaraveloo Vannian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.282
1. The decree sought to be executed is a mortgage-decree passed before the present Code of Civil Procedure came into force. It is in the form (then usual) of a combined decree directing the defendants to pay a certain sum on or before certain date, directing a sale of the mortgaged properties in default of payment, and also decreeing that the defendants do pay any deficiency that might arise if the sale proceeds proved insufficient to satisfy the amount decreed, with interest and costs.2. The decree was passed on the 8th October 1898. The mortgaged properties were sold on the 12th January 1903 and the sale was confirmed on the 17th February 1903. As the sale-proceeds were insufficient the decree-holder filed several applications in execution between 1903 and 1912. He filed an execution application in 1906 and execution was ordered after notice to the judgment-debtors. This order is final and it cannot be contended in subsequent execution proceedings that the decree was not executable o...
Lagadapati Venkatanagabushanam Vs. Ovilapati Mahalaxmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad554(2); 42Ind.Cas.555
1. The 1st respondent brought a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Agent in the Godavari District for dissolution of partnership and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default. Then the plaintiff appealed to the Agent, who without hearing the defendant in the suit set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed that the suit be restored to the file of the Assist-ant Agent to be heard and disposed of according to law. Against this order of the Agent, the present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred asking us to direct the Agent to review his order according to Rule 8 of the Agency Rules. But that rule applies only to decrees passed by the Government Agent and to judgments leading to decrees.2. A preliminary objection is taken that the order of the Agent directing that the suit be restored to file is not a decree within the meaning of the Agency rule. We think that this contention is sound. The point has been decided in Pedda Vikr...
Kanakasabai Mudaliar Vs. Rajagopal Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad678; 42Ind.Cas.523
1. The appellant Kanakasabai Mudaliar and some other persons were in possession of the properties in dispute claiming to be testamentary guardians under a Will executed by the father of one Ponnusawmi Mudali and two minors. On an application made under the Guardian and Wards Act by Ponnuswami in which he alleged that the properties were ancestral and belonged to the joint family and any testamentary disposition of his father could not, therefore, operate in respect of them, the District Judge removed Kanakasabai from guardianship and directed possession of the properties to be given to Ponnuswami and Ponnuswami accordingly was put in possession in 1909, On Kanakasabai appealing against the order of the District Judge, the High Court allowed the appeal holding that the properties were ancestral and the possession of Kanakasabai was that of a trespasser and, therefore, the application of Ponnuswami under the Guardian and Wards Act was incompetent. The order of the District Judge in the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›