Chennai Court October 1943 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.
Ghanta Gopala Rao and ors. Vs. Gogineni Venkatramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad254
Horwill, J.1. The respondent brought O.S. No. 46 of 1942 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali for enforcement of his contract of sale dated 25th January 1941 against defendant 3 and for an injunction restraining him and the other defendants from interfering with his possession. He also, by way of a separate petition, prayed for a temporary injunction. It was found that the plaintiff was in possession in part performance of the agreement to sell on 25th January 1941 and the Subordinate Judge therefore passed an order of temporary injunction in his favour. The argument of Mr. Sitarama Rao, quoting Probhodh Kumar Das v. Dantamara Tea Co., Ltd. is that Section 53A, T. P. Act, only entitles a person in possession in pursuance of an agreement to sell, to protection from any action of the transferor or those claiming under him to evict him on the ground that he had no legal title to the property and that the respondent is not therefore entitled to the positive relief of an injunctio...
Mummina Demudu and ors. Vs. Datla Papayyaraju Garu by His Muktyar Putr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad136; (1943)2MLJ657
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit, O.S. No. 177 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsiff of Yellamanchili, for ejectment against 13 defendants. The land from which the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants is assumed for the purpose of argument to be an estate by virtue of Act XVIII of 1936. According to Section 6cf the Madras Estates Land Act as now amended, all tenants in occupation on the 30th June, 1934, would acquire occupancy rights. Various issues were framed; but there has been no finding except with regard to one of them. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that according to the plaint, defendants 5 to 13 were in possession on that crucial date (30th June, 1934) and that therefore they had acquired occupancy rights and the plaintiff would not be entitled to possession.: The appellate Court held otherwise; because Section 8(5) contains an exception to the general rule enunciated in Section 6, sub-section 5 of Section 8 having been introduced by A...
Muttalif Alias Muhammed Abdul Kadir and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Sundaram Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad191
Horwill, J.1. The appellants held a preliminary mortgage decree against the respondent and others, whose appeal to this Court was dismissed with costs. The appellants thereupon sought to execute their decree for the costs awarded in this Court by arresting the respondent (defendant 2). The learned Subordinate Judge in a very short order agreed with the contention of the appellants that defendant 2 was liable personally for costs; but he passed an order that the appellants should first proceed against the hypo-theca, then sell the attached properties (not included in the hypotheca), and that if all these properties were not sufficient, arrest might again be applied for. The appellants claim to be aggrieved, because the learned Subordinate Judge did not consider the various points put forward by them in their affidavit as reasons why the respondent should be arrested.2. Under Section 51, Civil P. C, the Court is bound to refuse to arrest a judgment-debtor under certain contingencies; and...
Krishnaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Pappi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad228
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 2 and 11 to 13 are the appellants in this appeal and there are various questions raised as to the rights of several ayacutdars holding wet lands under a tank-as to how the rights to take the water to the several fields are to be regulated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that they had the right of taking the water of the tank which is the source of irrigation to certain wet fields which bear S. Nos. 2757, 2759, 2760 and 1147. A plan was prepared by a Commissioner appointed by the Court which was marked as Ex. C and this plan will be referred to in my judgment. A reference to Ex. C shows that the fields owned by the plaintiffs are all to the east of a channel shown as the surplus channel. The appellants are the owners of Sections No. 2765 which is situate to the west of this surplus channel. There are two tanks known as Karisalkulam tank or Pudu tank and Sengulam tank or Lakshminarayanapuram yeri. As regards the lands which are situate to the wes...
Gnanasiromani Nadar Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad263
Somayya, J.1. The respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant under which a sum of about Rs. 16,000 is said to be still due. The respondent applied for arrest of the appellant in execution of his decree. The appellant pleaded that by virtue of the provisions of Section 51, Civil P.C., as amended in 1936 he could not be arrested. Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 and the explanation are relied upon. Clause (b) of the proviso so far as it is necessary for this case runs thus:Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied....that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same.The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›