Chennai Court October 1945 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.
M. Perumal Chettiar Vs. Avula Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad169; (1945)2MLJ555
Yahya Ali, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge against which this appeal has been filed proceeds upon the view that the District Munsiff, Narasaraopet, had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the execution petition that was filed in his Court on 6th January, 1942 either on the date of the filing of the execution petition or on 9th February, 1942 when the* same was rejected. In the course of the Judgment the learned Subordinate Judge while referring to the application made in the Small Cause Court on 10th December, 1941 for transmission of the decree states that that alone would not confer jurisdiction on the District Munsiff's Court Narasaraopet to execute the decree. He further states that the appellant had no right at all to present the application to the District Munsiff, Narasaraopet, before the order of the transmission of the decree (meaning presumably before the receipt of the order directing transmission) and that the lower Court rightly returned the application on ...
Sayyed Khasim Sahib and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver, Guntur and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ553
Yahya Ali, J.1. Both these petitions involve the same point. An insolvent's property was sold and two persons who are the petitioners in these matters purchased the respective items. One of the creditors filed an application under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sales. The first Court upheld the sales, but on appeal by the creditor the District judge set aside the sales and directed fresh sales to be held.2. Two objections were taken by the purchasers. The first objection was that the creditor, being a person who had not proved his debt either by the date of the sales or by the date of his application, had no locus standi to maintain the application, not being an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 68. The second objection was one based on the merits--that the price fetched was not low and that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the sales.3. With reference to the first objection, the learned District Judge held, differing from the learne...
Ravi Tirupathi Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Rajah Kaminayuni Krishnappa N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad230; (1946)1MLJ80
Somayya, J.1. The suit is by the landholder to enforce the acceptance for fasli 1350 of a patta tendered by him and for execution of a muchilika by the defendants ryots. The muchilika which the landholder wants the ryot to execute is marked as Ex. A. The patta is not separately marked and I directed it to be marked as Ex. R. The defendants are ryots holding ryoti land under the Chundi estate of which the plaintiff is the landholder. There were two defendants in the suit. The first defendant died pending the second appeal and his legal representatives now continue the appeal.2. The sole question is whether certain conditions contained in Ex. R, the patta sought to be enforced and in Ex. A the muchilika sought to be executed by the ryot are legal and whether they ought to find a place in the patta and muchilika. Both the patta and muchilika comprise two items, S. Nos. 59 and 80. S. No. 59 is admittedly a ryoti land and there is no dispute as regards the terms of the patta and muchilika a...
K. Jagadeesa Ayyar Vs. Bavanambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ143
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The fourth defendant, who is the appellant in this appeal) is a simple money decree-holder who has purchased door Nos. 17 and 18 in execution of his decree. He objects to their being sold under the charge decree for maintenance made in O.S. No. 39 of 1927. His contentions are four-fold and can be stated briefly as follows. The decree creating a charge is bad for want of registration if the charge is to be deemed as one brought into existence by the act of parties. The second point is that a prior order made on 23rd October, 1933, on an application by the judgment-debtor to stop the sale of houses bearing Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 26 is res judicata against the contention raised by the charge decree-hoider. The third point taken is that Section 70 of the Transfer of Property Act which says that accession to the mortgaged property shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, enure to the benefit of the mortgagee does not apply to the present case because ...
Rao Sahib P.V. Rangayya Vs. Tatavarty Nagapotha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad176; (1945)2MLJ531
Yahya Ali, J.1. H.W. Maidan who was a partner in Maidan and Co., died in February, 1937. The business was continued by the surviving partner Rao Sahib P. V: Rangiah, who is the petitioner here, in the name of Maidan and Co. Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao obtained a decree in O.S. No. 546 of 1938, District Mun-siff's Court, Masulipatam, against the legal representatives of the aforesaid Maidan, the decree being against the assets of Maidan in their hands. The decree was passed on 9th June, 1939. In execution of the decree the decreeholder applied under Order 21, Rule 46 and Under Order 21, Rule 49 for the attachment of the assets belonging to the deceased Maidan in the partnership. The procedure prescribed in Rule 49 of Order 21 was followed and ultimately after the appointment of a receiver, examination of accounts and the determination of the value of the share in the goodwill of the business that belonged to Maidan, the Court below directed that the surviving partner who was the objector, sh...
In Re: Golla Chenchuramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ547
Horwill J.1. The appellants and another were charged before the Sessions Judge of Nellore with the murder of one Guruswami. The learned Sessions Judge round that there was no evidence that the third accused took any part in the transaction in which the murder was committed. He therefore acquitted that accused. He convicted the two appellants of murder and sentenced them to death.2. The deceased, the three accused, and the eye-witnesses are all Thottiyans and members of connected families. P.W. 3 is the husband of P.W. 6 and P. Ws. 4 and 5 are their daughters. The deceased was married to P.W. 5 and a brother of me two appellants was married to P.W. 4. P.W. 7 and the deceased were the sons of sisters, while P.W. 8 was a brother of the deceased.3. The quarrel that led up to this murder arose out of a dispute with regard to some ragi. P.W. 4 had a sick child and she wanted to purchase a talisman mat it might wear to recover its health; and in order to raise the money, she took some of the ...
Golla Chenchuramayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad83
Horwill, J.1. The appellants and another were charged before the Sessions Judge of Nellore with the murder of one Guruswami. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence that accused B-took any part in the transaction in which the murder was committed. He, therefore, acquitted that accused. He convicted the two appellants of murder and sentenced them to death.2. The deceased, the three accused, and the eye-witnesses are all Thottiyans and members of connected families. P.W. 3 is the husband of P.W. 6 and P. Ws. 4 and 5 are their daughters. The deceased was married to P.W. 5 and a brother of the two appellants was married to P.W. 4. P.W. 7 and the deceased were the sons of sisters, while P.W. 8 was a brother of the deceased. The quarrel that led up to this murder arose out of a dispute with regard to some ragi. P.W. 4 had a sick child and she wanted to purchase a talisman that it might wear to recover its health; and in order to raise the money, she took some of the famil...
Puthukuzhi Neelakantam Nambisan's son Karnavan Sankaran Nambisan Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad158; (1945)2MLJ535
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, to scale down the decree passed in O.S. No. 46 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ottapalam.2. The decree was passed upon a hypothecation bond executed by defendants 1 to 4 who were members of a tarwad governed by ordinary Hindu Law. Defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and the fourth defendant is the son of the first defendant. The mortgaged properties having been sold, a personal decree for the balance remaining due on the hypothecation was passed on 27th January, 1938. Certain properties, belonging to the family which had already been attached were sought to be sold in execution of this decree. At that stage the fourth defendant filed an application (E.A. No. 878 of 1940) under Section 20 of the Act for stay of execution, and stay was ordered. But the fourth defendant did not file any application for scaling down the decree under Section 19 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›