The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday July 11 1904

108 Civil Procedure Code in which the Munsif set aside the decree on the consent of the Plaintiff but the District Judge took exception to it on the ground that the Munsif allowed the application without taking any evidence pointing out to him that he could refuse the application notwithstanding the consent of the opposite party. [...] The omission to take the signatures of the minority of the arbitrtors to the doonment which formed the record of the award was not fatal to the award. [...] On the 30th April 1810 the Judge of the Virachallam District dismissed the suit fining that the Plaintiffs did not have the right claimed by them This judgment was on the 17th April 1815 confirmed on appeal and the image of Manvala Mahamuni temporarily placed in the said temple was removed In the year 1828 the Tengalai sect set up a new idol of their saint in the private house of one of the [...]. The suit was resisted and on the 23rd October 1900 the said District Judge delivered his judgment and decided that the question of the relative rights of the parties was not concluded by the previous judgments between them that it was not proved that the streets were the property of the said temple that Petitioners had proved a custom in restraint of the public worship or processions of the T [...] From the said decree Petitioners appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the said Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge and decided that the custom alleged was unreasonable that the use of the streets by the Tengalai sect for public worship was legal and coulnot be restrained and that the matters in 'question were not finally determined by the prvious litigations.