Chennai Court July 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.
Gokarakonda Audinarayudu Vs. Surapureddi Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad706; (1943)2MLJ300
King, J.1. The appellant here is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 27 of 1937 and he has attached certain property which he alleged to be the property of his judgment-debtors, defendants 1 and 2. The fourth defendant intervened with a claim petition in which it was asserted that the first and second defendants had contracted to sell the property to her and had duly put her in possession. There was thus, what was in effect, a plea under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The claim was dismissed in the first instance by the District Munsiff. There was then an appeal which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry. He considered that the District Munsiff had dealt with the matter in too summary a fashion, as if it were merely a claim petition. He held that on the contrary, Section 47 applied and that the enquiry should be much more exhaustive. He, accordingly, remanded the suit to the District Munsiff for that particular kind of inquiry. No appeal was filed against...
Panga Jagannadhan and ors. Vs. Andhavarapu Venkatappanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ358
Horwill, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants on 17th August, 1925. He brought some property to sale in execution of that decree and the appellants filed a petition to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity. That petition was dismissed for default. The appellants then put in an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed. Before the application to set aside the sale was again disposed of, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the appellants were to pay Rs. 3,000 within three months. In the event of their doing so, the sale was to be set aside and full satisfaction recorded; if they failed to do so, the sale was to be confirmed and part satisfaction entered up. Before the three months had elapsed, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act had come into force and the appellants applied to the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore to scale down the decree. That was done and the sale set aside under Section 23 of the Madras Agricul...
K.A. Kaliappa Mudaliar Vs. Dasappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad659; (1943)2MLJ194
Happell, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal obtained a decree in O.S. No. 698 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tirupathur against the first defendant personally and the joint family properties in the hands of the 2nd to 7th defendants, and by the District Munsiff he was given his costs and interest at the contract rate until the date of suit. On appeal the first appellate Court deprived the plaintiff of his costs and granted him only interest at 6 per cent. from 31st August, 1940, on the ground that on that date a certificate had been issued to the debtor, the first defendant, under Section 18(1) of the Debt Conciliation Act. Section 18(1) of the Debt Conciliation Act empowers a Debt Conciliation Board where it is of opinion that the debtor has made a creditor a fair offer which the creditor ought reasonably to accept, to grant a certificate to the debtor, and under Section 18(2), where such certificate has been granted, the creditor suing in a Civil Court shall no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›