Chennai Court February 1945 Judgments
Palladugula Suryanarayana Vs. Samayamanthula Nageswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad381; (1945)1MLJ438
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question of the appeal is whether the appellant possesses a right of set-off by virtue of Section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section says that a transferee of a decree shall hold it subject to the ewities which the judgment-debtor might have enforced against the original decree-holder.2. In O. S No. 556 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Razole, the plaintiff, one Mylavarapu Venkataratnam, obtained a money decree against the appellant. In excution of it the decree-holder attached certain immovable purchased the properties. Thereupon the appellant applied to the Court under Order 21, Rule 90 for an order setting aside the sale. His application was dismissed; but on appeal the sale was set aside. This was on the 30th January, 1930. The 15th September, 1933. It was then manifest that the appellant was entitled to be placed in possession of the properties with mesne profits from the date on which he had been disposs...
Tag this Judgment!Vemuri Subbayya Vs. Bayya Nagaratnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ19
Somayya, J.1. The question in this case is, in my opinion, really concluded by the decision of the Full Bench in Venkatachalapati Rao v. Kameswaramma (1945) 1 M.L.J. 165. An order for stay was obtained from the Appellate Court on the 9th July, 1942, but it was not communicated by the Appellate Court to the trial Court until the latter Court rose for the day. It seems to have been received in the office of the District Munsif after court hours. A warrant had been issued for the attachment of certain movables of the judgment-debtor on the same day, and the finding of the lower Court is that it was done long before the trial Court had notice of the stay order. The order for attachment was issued even prior to the passing of the order of stay by the Appellate Court. The warrant was issued to an amin, and the amin attached certain movables early on the morning of the next day. The question is whether the attachment is valid.2. Mr. K. Kameswara Rao, learned advocate for the appellant, argues...
Tag this Judgment!Juluri Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Kollipara Ramakotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad511; (1945)2MLJ152
Somayya, J.1. The lower appellate Court has not appreciated the requirements of a step in aid of execution. What has to be decided is whether the prior execution applications were applications in accordance with law. If the prior applications were in accordance with law, then they serve as steps in aid of execution and the final order passed on such applications give a fresh start. The question therefore is whether the previous applications had been presented in accordance with law. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, it is not every defect in an execution application that will render the application 'not one ' in accordance with law. In this case the previous applications were filed without any defect whatever. No doubt certain further acts may be required by the Court to be done before effectual execution can be ordered on those very applications. The sale papers may be directed to be filed and several other acts may be required to be done by the decree-holder before th...
Tag this Judgment!Dronamraju Seshagiri Rao Vs. Godithi Rammayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad503; (1945)2MLJ214
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals and eight civil revision petitions are connected. I shall deal with the revision petitions first as all of them raise the same point.2. The mokhasadars of Chilakapadu and Muppavaram filed suits in the District Munsiff 's Court of Tanuku against their tenants for the recovery of rent and for ejectment. The tenants pleaded that they had occupancy rights in the lands as they form part of an 'estate ' within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. This plea was upheld by the District MunsifF who directed the plaints to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. On appeals preferred by the mokhasadars, the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, reached the same conclusion and confirmed the decrees of the District Munsiff. These revision petitions are from the decision of the Subordinate Judge and raise the question whether the lands form part of an estate in which the defendants have occ...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthalinga Padayachi and anr. Vs. Chandrasekhara Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad242; (1945)1MLJ357
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the trustees of the Viswanathaswami Koil at Puliyangudi in the Chidambaram taluk. The mentality which their case discloses is surprising in persons holding their position. 2. By a will dated the 12th April, 1901, one Muruga Padayachi directed that the income of certain immovable properties should be dedicated to the temple. The testator died shortly after the execution of the will Twelve months before the will was made he adopted as his son the respondent. The properties which Muruga Padayachi purported to settle belonged to the joint family and therefore his testamentary directions in this respect were' entirely invalid. The respondent was a minor when his father died, but after he came of age, he fulfilled for a time his father's directions, by paying over to the trustees the income of the properties set aside for this, temple. Later, he decided that he would not recognise the settlement as a valid one and consequently refused to p...
Tag this Judgment!The Chettinad Mercantile Bank, Ltd., by Its Agent and Secretary T. Sub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad447; (1945)2MLJ100
Somayya, J.1. The second defendant in the suit appeals against the decree of the District Judge of Ramnad making it liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 and interest thereon to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent had two cheques given to her by the Harvey Mills, Madura, both drawn on the Imperial Bank, one for Rs. 20,900 and another for Rs. 18,682-8-0. The plaintiff endorsed both these cheques in favour of the first defendant. We are not concerned with the cheque for Rs. 20,000. As regards the cheque for Rs. 18,682-8-0, the plaintiff's case is that she gave definite instructions that the first defendant should pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 odd due to the second defendant Bank by the plaintiff in respect of some pledge of jewels made on her behalf by the first defendant, that he should take Rs. 3,000 as a loan and execute a promissory note for that sum to the plaintiff, that a draft for Rs. 3,000 should be taken in the plaintiff's name payable on the Kulitalai Bank to be utilised for her own p...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyapputty Vs. Kunhi Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ269
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal is by the second defendant, who is the holder of a kanom right. The suit was for redemption of the kanom and it was decreed by the District Munsiff, who overruled the plea of the kanomdar that the plaintiff's tarwad had lost its title to the property by reason of a Court auction sale in O.S. No. 218 of 1905. The sale certificate was also filed in proof of this allegation about the loss of title. The District Munsiff and the District Judge negatived the plea on the ground that though there was this sale certificate, it was not proved by the second defendant that the auction purchaser, Choyi, took delivery of the properties. In other words, they held that notwithstanding the Court auction purchase, the tenancy between the plaintiff's tarwad and the defendant continued and that it was not put an end to merely by reason of the Court sale.2. It is not enough for the kanomdar, who is in the position of a lessee and a mortgagee to show that a thir...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudha Naicker Vs. Annamalai Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ298
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The only point that arises in this second appeal is a question of limitation and the relevant dates are given at page 5 of the judgment of the first Court. The finding of the Subordinate Judge that the schedule which was filed on 13th July, 1936, gives a fresh starting point of limitation as there is an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the suit promissory note, has not been challenged. The only point which was argued before him was that this schedule did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability. No other point was raised or pressed before him. However, it is open to the appellant to put forward a pure question of law here and what Mr. Ramachandra Rao has urged now is that the suit which was filed on 17th February, 1941, was out of time as it is not within three years from the date of the acknowledgment of liability in the schedule, viz., 13th July, 1936. He contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to ask that the period from the date of the sc...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyanna Goundan Vs. T.P. Thandavan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad352; (1945)1MLJ355
Somayya, J.1. The question raised in this miscellaneous second appeal is one of limitation. The decree which is sought to be executed by the application under appeal was one passed on 29th of July, 1932. Under the decree the first defendant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1385 with interest and costs. In default of payment a charge decree was given over certain properties in the hands of the second defendant. A right to apply for a personal decree in case the sale proceeds of the charged, properties were insufficient was also reserved. E.P. No. 1465 of 1934 was filed on 3rd July, 1934, for the arrest of the first defendant but it was dismissed for nonpayment of batta. Then, E.P. No. 1826 of 1937 was filed on 20th August, 1937- It was also for the arrest of the first defendant and was dismissed for non-payment of batta. The next one was E.P. No. 1408 of 1939 filed on 7th August, 1939, for arrest again of the first defendant and was dismissed as not pressed. Then comes the present appli...
Tag this Judgment!Boddepalli Sanyasappa Rao and anr. Vs. Sanapala Papinaidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad392; (1945)1MLJ430
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. In this appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors 4 and 5, the only question which arises is whether a sum of Rs. 1,640 which was realised by sale of the first defendant's properties in execution of a charge decree should first be appropriated to interest and costs due under the' decrees of the trial Court and the appellate Court, or whether it can be appropriated in the manner the decree-holder has done in filing the execution application, namely, towards the amount of the principal and interest due under the decree. This question would not arise at all and would have no value if we had not more than one mortgagor to consider. The right conferred on the mortgagee to appropriate realisations under the decree first towards interest and then towards costs and lastly towards the principal money is intended for his benefit and the mortgagor cannot--and generally will not--insist on his taking this benefit. But where there is more than one mortgagor, the difficulty...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »