Chennai Court July 1954 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.
imam Saheb Vs. Ameer Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad621; 1955CriLJ1370
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1.One Imam Sahib had a son named Moideen Sahib, and three daughters named Kulsumbi, Jainabi and Asyabi, Moideen Sahib, has a son Imam Sahib and he is the first defendant in the suit. Jainabi had a son named Dada Miya who died in 1946. Dada Miya married the first plaintiff and by her he had Gve children who arc plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 2 and 3. On 28-3-1906 Imam Sahib executed a settlement deed Ex. A. 1 wherein, inter alia he made the following provisions. He gave all his properties to his son Moideen Sahib and directed that he and his heirs should pay five mudis of rice to Kulsumbi and another five mudis to Jainabi and after their lifetime to their male children.Asyabi had a daughter and so far as she was concerned, the settlor directed that she was to be given eight mudis of rice and Rs. 4 per annum but after her death no one 'shall have the right to claim anything allotted to her. After her death, you and your representatives shall utilise the said rice a...
Sinnaru thevan and ors. Vs. Nachiappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad67
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The facts have been very elaborately stated in the judgment of the lower Court and need not be repeated Here. The sole question for consideration is whether, pending an application for execution of a decree, if a third party claimant puts in a claim petition on the ground that the properties attached by the decree-holder do not belong to the judgment-debtor, the decree can be executed or whether the pendency of the claim petition operates as stay of the execution of the decree in order to attract the provisions of Section 15(1), Limitation Act. On the question as to whether for the application of Section 15, Limitation Act, the period of twelve years prescribed under Section 48, Civil P. C., should be deemed to be the period of limitation there has been some controversy. In -- 'Subbarayan v. Natarajan', AIR 1923 Mad 268 (A), a B ench of this Court has held that the period prescribed under Section 48, C. P. C., is not a period of limitation. This view has not been a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›