Chennai Court December 1946 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.
Kommanduru Seshamma and anr. Vs. K. Seshadri Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad179
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This is a petition by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 155 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint in the following circumstances. The suit was instituted by respondent 1 for recovery and possession of the properties described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff's case was based on two specific titles. One was on the footing that he had been validly adopted to one deceased Venkatacharlu to whom the suit properties admittedly belonged. The other was under his last will and testament dated 21-8-1936 bequeathing in favour of the plaintiff the entire estate as a persona designata. In para. 7 of the plaint, it was alleged that on 12-8-1936 the deceased Venkatacharlu got a draft will prepared and on 16-8-1936 he gave the draft to respondent 1's father for his approval and that exception was taken to it on the sentimental ground that it contained inauspicious r...
Sri Soundararaja Perumal Devasthanam, by Its Trustees, L.R. Ganapathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad360; (1947)1MLJ148
Rajamannar, J.1. On a reading of the plaint in the case, I am clearly of opinion that the suit was properly valued under Section 7, Clause (iv)(f) of the Court-Fees Act and that ad valorem court-fee is not payable. The learned District Judge relied on a decision of Byers, J., in Sokkammal v. Arunachalam Pillai : (1945)2MLJ460 . From the judgment of the learned Judge it appears that he was dealing with a suit for the recovery of specific sums. In that case accounts had already been furnished by the guardian to the District Court and in the plaint details of amounts misapplied and misappropriated were given. The prayer was for the recovery of such sums. But in the present case the prayer is to pass a decree, directing the defendants to render a true and proper account with reference to the transactions, collections, expenses, remissions, amounts allowed to become time-barred, non-collections, etc., set forth in several paragraphs of the plaint and for the appointment of a Commissioner to...
Baggiammal Vs. G. Rajagopala Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ324
Clark, J.1. The petitioner has applied for a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed to the estate of Gudisai Narayanaswami Chetty, deceased. The respondent has lodged a caveat against that grant. The object of the present summons is to have the respondent's caveat struck off on the ground that the respondent has no interest in the estate of the deceased. The following table will serve to show the relationship of the parties. Ramu Chetty (deceased) | __________________________________________ | | Govinda Chetty (deceased) Venkatesa Chetty (deceased) | | Peria Muniswami Chetty (deceased) Chinna Muniswami Chetty (deceased) | | G. Narayanaswami Chetty (deceased) : | Baggiammal (petitioner) (legatee) G. Rajagopala Chetty (respondent). | Kannammal (daughter) : Appadorai | Pratapan.2. It is common ground that the deceased and the respondent were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family ; but according to the petitioner, there was a partition in status on the 7th June, 1...
Bava Mohideen Rowther Vs. Pathuma Gani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad410; (1947)1MLJ233
Horwill, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an order of the District Judge of East Tanjore dismissing an application purporting to be made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Arbitration Act.2. The dispute between the parties relates to the administration of a trust. In O.S. No. 18 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge of East Tanjore, a compromise was arrived at and a decree was passed in its terms. According to Clause 13 of the compromise, there was a provision for reference to arbitration in the event of a dispute. A dispute did arise between the parties and a reference was made. An award was given and an application filed in the Court of the District Judge to pass a decree in terms of the award. The Court did so. The appellant then filed A.S. No. 449 of 1942, in this Court against the award and also C.R.P. No. 1702 of 1942. The regular appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay. The civil revision petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no error in the e...
Dhulipalla Brahamaramba Vs. Dhulipalla Seetharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad405; (1947)1MLJ119
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. One Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao and his two minor brothers, Sreedhara Rao and Butchaiya, filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, asking to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis for a decree for the partition of immoveable property. The application complied with all the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to a plaint. The document was in form and substance a plaint, coupled with a prayer to be allowed to sue without payment of the Court-fee. Before the Court had time to inquire into the alleged pauperism of the petitioner, Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao died. Thereupon, his mother, the petitioner now before us, applied to be brought on the record as his legal representative and to be allowed to continue the suit in his place.... She signified her willingness to pay the Court-fee. The Subordinate Judge relying on the judgment of Horwill, J., in Anasuyamma v. Subba Reddi : AIR1943Mad646 dismissed the application....
Gopalakrishna Bhatta Vs. Gururajacharya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad299; (1947)1MLJ109
Rajamannar, J.1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of arrears of mulgeni rent brought by the respondent seeks to revise the decree passed against him by the learned District Munsiff of Udipi. The only question in dispute is as to the rate of rent. The plaintiff claimed at Rs. 10-2-0 per year. The defendant contended that the proper rate of rent was Rs. 7-2-0. The plaintiff also alleged that the rate of rent was concluded by res judicata. by reason of the judgment in a prior suit S.C.S. No. 357 of 1936. The learned District Munsiff found on the merits that the rent fixed was only Rs. 7-2-0 per year, but held that the decree in S.C.S. No. 357 of 1936 operated as res judicata. The only evidence relating to the prior suit is that furnished by the judgment and the decree. The copy of the judgment filed as Ex. P-2 does not appear to be complete. It simply states that the suit is for a particular amount and that there should be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the sum claimed. The d...
G.V. Krishnamurthi Ayyar Vs. R. Kailasam Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad355; (1947)1MLJ183
Rajamannar, J.1. The petitioner was the endorsee of a promissory note executed by one Rajagopala Ayyar, the father of the respondents, in favour of one Gnanambal. He obtained a decree in S.C. No. 515 of 1939 against the respondents, the undivided sons of the said Rajagopala Ayyar. Originally the decree directed them to pay the decree amount 'out of the separate assets of their father.' The petitioner applied to this Court to revise the decree (C.R.P. No. 1474 of 1940) and Burn, J., modified the decree by substituting for the words ' out of their father the late Rajagapala Ayyar's separate assets 'the words' as the legal representatives of their late father Rajagopala Ayyar.' In execution of this decree, the petitioner proceeded to attach the pint family properties in the hinds of the respondents. The respondents objected to the attachment on the ground that the petitioner was a decree-holder in a suit on an endorsed promissory note and the suit being only on the promissory note he coul...
Somasundaram Pillai Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad366; (1947)1MLJ123
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He was a bidder at a public auction of some of the arrack shops held by the Sub-Collector of Tindivanam. His was the highest bid in respect of two of the shops. But the bids were not accepted by the Sub-Collector, and the sale was ordered to be continued with the plaintiff's bids as the initial bids. No bidders came forward to bid even at the amounts offered by the plaintiff. The shops had ultimately to be sold for lower bids, with the result that there was a loss to the Government of Rs. 1,148. The plaintiff asked for the return of the amount he paid as advance and for an injunction restraining the Government from proceeding against him for the recovery of the loss. His suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff and this dismissal was upheld by the District Judge of South Arcot. Hence this second appeal.2. Three questions have been raised on his behalf. The first is that the notification under which the sales were held and ...
Chengalraya Chetty Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad338; (1947)1MLJ103
Rajamannar, J.1. This civil revision petition arises in the insolvency of one Fakir Sahib. The petitioner is one of the creditors of the insolvent. He tendered proof of his claim which was rejected by the Official Receiver and he thereupon applied under Section 33 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920 to the Court to accept proof of his debt. Though the Official Receiver refused to contest the. petition the learned Subordinate Judge held that the claim of the petitioner could not be proved in insolvency because it was a claim by way of contribution and therefore was not provable under Section 34 of the Insolvency Act. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. He held that the claim made for contribution cannot be said to be a liquidated claim within the meaning of Section 34 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. The claim is made in respect of an amount which the petitioner paid to discharge a decree in O.S. No. 464 of 1931 on the fil...
Perumal and ors. Vs. Perumal Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad404; (1947)1MLJ182
Rajamannar, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the suit is excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts because the claim falls under Article 35(ii), Schedule II of the Act which runs as follows:A suit for compensation for an act which is, or, save for the provisions of Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, would be, an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the said Code.The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 65 being the value of tamarind belonging to the plaintiff alleged to have been taken away by the defendants on 1st March, 1945. The learned District Munsiff of Turiyur held that the suit did not fall within the scope of this Article and decreed the suit finding on the merits in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are the petitioners in this Court.2. Though a number of decisions were cited before me by both the learned advocates for the petitioners and respondents, in every decision the learned Judges m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »