Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Putta Veeranna vs Yellapalli Mocharamma on 18 January, 1938 cites

Kesaram Narasimhulu And Kesaram ... vs Vuddanda Row Narasimhulu Patnailu on 11 October, 1906

In Kesaram v. Vuddanda Row (1906) 16 M.L.J. 514 : I.L.R. 30 Mad. 126 (F.B.), the plaintiff was the holder of the office of karnam and the defendant resisted his claim on the ground that the land in suit was not the emolument of the office but was the private property of the plaintiff, which passed to the defendant in execution of a decree obtained by him against the former. The case was heard by three Judges and Miller, J., in the course of his judgment thus observes:
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Kajuluri Viranna Alias Bulli Veeranna ... vs Tillapudi Venkayya And Ors. on 2 October, 1936

10. There appears no reason why the view uniformly held in these cases should now be departed from. The point again arose in Viranna v. Venkayya (1937) 1 M.L.J. 37, where K.S. Menon, J., rightly treated the observations of Waller, J., as obiter. As a question of construction, a plaintiff even when he happens to be a person actually holding an office, has to allege in his plaint ''that he is entitled to hold such office" - which means no more than that he is the rightful office-holder, which, in turn, is the basis of his right to the emoluments claimed.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1