Chennai Court October 1925 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.
Khaji Mahomed Ibrahim Saheb Vs. Sundaram Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.823
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Appeal by the legal representative of the deceased 1st plaintiff against the appellate decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in Appeal Suit No. 66 of 1920. The suit was instituted by the deceased 1st plaintiff as hukdar of the Wallajah Nawab Jumma Kotwa Pallivasal at Sivaganga for delivery of possession of the site leased to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant denied the sole right of the 1st plaintiff to the hukdarship and management of the Pallivasal and contended that the Pallivasal and its properties were being managed by the Muhammadan community of Sivaganga through persons appointed by them. He further contended that he was only in possession of the southern portion of the site as lessee from Keelaka, Perottasi, with the permission of the then managers, that he had executed a rent-deed in their favour on 14th June, 1915, for a period of three years and that he was never in possession of the northern portion. The first issue framed rela...
Kannuri Venkatasiva Rao and ors. Vs. Chittoori Rama Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.790
1. This revision petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Bezwada. The object of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the election of the defendants as members of the Panchayat Court of Bezwada was void. Pending the trial of the suit, the. plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction restraining, the defendants from entering upon their duties as panchayatdars. The District Munsif decided that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and proceeded to grant the injunction applied for. The result, but for the interference of this Court, might have been to deprive the citizens of Bezwada for several years of the services of a Panchayat Court. Rule 64 of the rules framed by Government under the Village Courts Act provides fully for the competency of the proceedings of Panchayat Courts despite defects in their constitution or in the qualifications of their members, so that it was as unnecessary as it was undesirable for the District Munsif to have passed...
O.S. Rarnachandra Aiyar, Official Receiver, Tanjore Vs. Sankara Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad357; (1926)50MLJ239
Jackson, J.1. The petition is to revise the order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, in C.M.A. No. 29 of 1924.2. One V. Mahadeva Aiyar was judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 407 of 1923 on the file of the Court of the District Mun sif of Mannargudi. On 7th April, 1924, a creditor applied to have him adjudicated insolvent. On 8th and 9th April property of his was sold in execution of the decree. On 24th April the Official Receiver was appointed interim Receiver under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On 9th June the interim Receiver deposited moneys under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside and the District Munsif of Mannargudi set it aside. The District Judge reversed the order of the District Munsif. Hence the petition.3. The point for determination as correctly stated by the learned Judge in his second paragraph is whether the interim Receiver by virtue of his appointment under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act had power to act under Or...
Vadapalli Varadacharlu Vs. Khandavilli Narasimha Charlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad258
Phillips, J.1. This is a petition for revising an order of the District Court of Godavari refusing to grant an injunction restraining the execution of a decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff's father. The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction and this view was upheld by the District lodge.2. It is now contended that such an injunction will come under Order 39, either Rule 1 or Rule 2. It certainly cannot come within the language of Rule 1, for there is no suggestion that the property of which delivery is to be given is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. It is then argued that Rule 2 would be applicable and that this is an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing other injury of any kind.' The alleged injury is the execution of a decree lawfully obtained. In order to hold that that does constitute an injury, it is necessary to hold that that decree is illegal, for, if the decree is legal, the defendant h...
Natesa Aiyar and ors. Vs. Panchapagesa Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad247
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit as reversioners to recover certain property alienated by a widow 49 years before suit, in 1871. The question of fact to be decided was whether the alienation was for necessary purposes binding on the reversioners. There is no recital in the document (Ex.1) as to the purpose for which the land was sold. Owing to the great lapse of time since the alienation took place, no direct evidence was available to prove for what purpose the widow sold the property. The Courts below therefore had to depend upon evidence as to the attendant circumstances and the conduct of the parties; and both Courts finally came to the conclusion that the alienation could not be questioned.2. The alienation of 1871 by Dharmi Ammal was in favour of Arunachala Aiyar, grandson of Parasurama Aiyar, the common ancestor. Arunachala Aiyar's four sons sold the same property under Ex. II, in 1887, to the father of Defendants 1 and 2 and the grandfather of the third defendant.3...
Vadapalli Varadacharyulu Vs. Khandavilli Narasimhacharyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.615
Phillips, J.1. This is a petition for revising an order of the District Court of Godavari refusing to grant an injunction restraining the execution of a decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff's father. The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction and this view was upheld by the District Judge.2. It is now contended that such an injunction will come under Order XXXIX, either Rule 1 or Rule 2. It certainly cannot come within the language of Rule 1, for there is-no suggestion that the property of which delivery is to be given is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. It is then argued that Rule 2 would be applicable and that this is ah injunction to restrain the defendant from committing 'other injury of any kind.' The alleged injury is the execution of a decree lawfully obtained. In order to hold that, that does constitute an injury, it is necessary to hold that, that decree is illegal, for, if the decree is legal, the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›