Chennai Court October 1942 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.
In Re: U. Ananthakrishna Baliga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad177; (1942)2MLJ707
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. Four appeals were filed in this Court in the ordinary form. They were heard ex parte and accepted by a Division Bench composed of Venkataramana Rao, J. and myself on the 20th November, 1941, after arguments had been addressed to us by Mr. Sitarama Rao on behalf of the appellant. The petitioner, who was one of the respondents and who was by our judgment also held liable for the debts, presented four petitions for review in forma pauperis after the retirement of Venkataramana Rao, J. The first question to decide is whether these petitions are legally competent and the petitioner can be allowed to prosecute them as a pauper.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends in the first instance that although his application was not in terms covered either by Orders 33 or 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure yet it is possible for this Court to permit him to make an application for review in the same way as a defendant was allowed by Wilson, J., in Doorgachurn Doss v. Nit...
Kovvuri Satyanarayanamurthi and ors. Vs. Tetali Pydayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad459; (1943)1MLJ219
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The other question as to the benami or fictitious nature of certain transactions having been, as I would show later, concluded by a finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court the only real question to decide in this second appeal is whether Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act can afford any protection to the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 and if so, to what extent2. The plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are the sons of one Kamaraju who died some years ago. Their mother, Sooramma figures as the third defendant in the present litigation. A sale deed in respect of item 1 out of the properties described in the plaint schedule was executed on the 12th April, 1910, in her favour (Ex. A). The second item in the plaint schedule is a seventeenth share in a rice mill while items 3 and 7 are houses and house sites purchased by the third defendant on the 22nd Septemb...
Leelavathi Ammal Vs. Neni Kavur Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad179; (1943)1MLJ139
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, dismissing an execution petition filed by the appellant for the execution of a money decree obtained by her in O.S. No. 1001 of 1939 on the file of his Court. While the suit was pending the appellant had the property now in dispute attached before judgment. The attachment was made on 19th . April, 1939. On 16th January, 1940, the defendant sold the property to the respondent who took it, of course, subject to all claims enforceable under the attachment. On 10th January, 1941, the appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 4,043-1-0 with subsequent interest. On 25th February, 1941, the judgment-debtor was adjudged insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Assignee, Madras. The present execution petition was filed on 3rd May, 1941, praying for the realisation of the decree amount by sale of the attached property after bringing on the record the respondent who had, as already mention...
Guduri Anjayya and anr. Vs. Devabhaktuni Gundarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad381; (1943)2MLJ539
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The petition which gave rise to the order under appeal was filed by the first respondent, who was a purchaser amongst others of the property in dispute in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by himself in O.S. No. 81 of 1931 on the file of the Court below. In 1922, some three years after the mortgage, the equity of redemption in an extent of 6.16 acres out of the mortgaged property was purchased by one Venkataramiah in Court-auction in execution of a money decree obtained against the mortgagors. The purchaser also obtained possession through Court on 3rd December, 1922. In 1930, Venkataramaiah was adjudicated an insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Receiver. At the time When the mortgage suit, O.S. No. 81 of 1931, was instituted, which was on 22nd October, 1931, the insolvency was still pending and the plaintiff, therefore, impleaded the Official Receiver as a defendant. He also impleaded Venkataramaiah's son, but Venkataramaiah himself was no...
S.T.P. Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Province of Madras, Represented by Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad132
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from collecting irrigation cess in respect of his lands survey fields Nos. 21 and 16 in Vadakkuvali village and for recovery of the cesses collected for faslis 1343 and 1344, was dismissed by both the Courts. These lands are irrigated with water taken from a tank or kuttai formed in the patta land of the appellant himself, survey field No. 22. But the Government case is that water flowing through a vari or, channel belonging to the Government is the main source of water-supply for this kuttai and that therefore the Government is entitled to levy irrigation cess under Section 1(b), Madras Irrigation Cess Act.2. The lower appellate Court has found that it is a vari which enters the tank from the north that is the main source of supply of water and that it starts from the Government village of Gollapatti which is north of Chokkanadapuram and therefore it is water flowing through a c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›