SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 376

VENKATARAMANA RAO
K. Govinda Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
A. N. Muniswami Chettiar – Respondent


ORDER

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput declining to grant restitution of the possession of a certain temple called Sri Kalatheeswaraswami in Chunnambukulam village together with all the keys, articles of worship, jewels, vahanams, etc., appurtenant thereto. The view taken by the learned District Judge is that no question of restitution arose, because there was no delivery of the property in pursuance of any order of Court. It seems to me that this view is sound. The case of the petitioners is that there was an order for a temporary injunction made in the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs and taking advantage of that order, the plaintiffs without notice to defendants forcibly took possession of the temple and its properties by breaking open the locks of the temple; this was according to them on or after 18th March 1935 when the lower Court made the said order of temporary injunction in the plaintiffs favour. On 1st May 1935, in pursuance of an order of the High Court suspending the said order, the defendants applied for restitution of the said properties. The learned District Judge by his order dated 4th M




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top