Chennai Court April 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.
Uppuluri Ramamani Vs. Yelamanchili Basavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad170; (1946)2MLJ321
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that the question was previously decided in O.S. No. 623 of 1935. The plaintiff and her brother were the donees of the suit property under a settlement deed executed by their grandmother's sister, one Achamma. Achamma settled the property on her sister's grandchildren under Ex. P-1 of the year 1905. The plaintiff's brother, Gopalakrishnayya, died in 1922 and thereafter Achamma, the donor, revoked the settlement deed and settled the property on the plaintiff's husband. The husband of the plaintiff alienated the properties to several persons. In the year 1934, Achamma died. In 1935 the plaintiff's brother's widow filed O.S. No. 623 of 1935 for partition and recovery of her share. To that suit she made the present plaintiff as defendant 1; her husband was defendant 2; her sons were defendants 3 and 4; and the alienees were made other defendants. In the written statement filed by defendant 1, she said that her husband's al...
S. Murugesa Gramani Vs. the Province of Madras Represented by the Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad74; (1946)2MLJ171
Somayya, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a decree restraining the defendant-respondent by an injunction from interfering with the appellant's right to the suit land and for a declaration that he is entitled to the reliefs provided under Madras Act III of 1922 (Madras City Tenants Protection Act). The appellant's father was granted a lease of a plot of land measuring 180 square feet in Perambur within the city of Madras. This was in the year 1917 and the monthly rent was Rs. 5. After the death of the father successive leases were granted by the respondent from time to time. In 1934, the appellant requested the Government to assign the land to him but the Government refused. A similar request was made in 1935 and that again was turned down. In May, 1941, the respondent terminated the lease on the ground that one of the conditions of the lease was violated and that the lease contained a provision for forfeiture and re-entry. The lease that was current at t...
Devaki Antarjanam and ors. Vs. P. Mariyakutti Umma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad130; (1946)2MLJ166
Somayya, J.1. The only question arising for consideration in the second appeal: is whether the plaint has been properly valued and whether the requisite court-fee has been paid. The suit is by plaintiffs 1 to 4 who are members of the Nambudiri Illom. The second defendant is the karnavan and the suit is for redemption of a mortgage executed in favour cf one Vasudevan Somayajipad. Ex. D-1 is that mortgage and it was a possessory mortgage for Rs. 600. After the death of Vasudevan Somayajipad his son assigned it in favour of the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant karnavan executed the sale deed of the properties covered by the mortgage, Ex. D-1, in favour of the first defendant. That sale deed is Ex, D-2 dated 14th January, 1937. Under that document he purported to act on behalf of himself as karnavan, of the illom and also as guardian of his minor daughter the third plaintiff in the suit. Ex. D-2 purports to be executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well who are the mother and w...
Kuppuswami Mudali Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad102; (1946)2MLJ214
Somayya, J.1. Plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the alienation made by Alamelu Ammal is not binding upon them. The properties belonged to one Ayyaswami Mudali who died in the year 1902 leaving a widow Nagammal and two daughters Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal. Nagammal died in 1924 and thereupon Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal inherited the property as the daughters of the last male holder. It is common case that some sort of division was effected between Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal and there is a question whether this division was only for convenient enjoyment or whether it was an absolute partition by which the right of the survivor to recover the property on the death of the predeceased sister was also given up. This question has not been gone into for two reasons: firstly that Kuppammal is not a party to the alienation and secondly that the matter can be disposed of without going into this question, because assuming that the...
Palacherla Venkata Rao and ors. Being Minors Represented by Mother and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ473
Clark, J.1. The petitioners are minors. They were defendants in O.S. No. 63 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff of Rajahmundry. That suit was a mortgage suit and the plaintiff obtained a decree for sale. The property was brought to sale at a court-auction on the I2lh October, 1943. On the 1st of November, 1943, the petitioners represented by their mother filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90. In the suit, their uncle had been appointed guardian ad litem and that appointment had never been cancelled. On the 22nd November, 1943, the petitioners filed a security bond in the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 90. The bond was returned to them on the 26th November, 1943. The reason for that return is stated as follows in an endorsement on the affidavit:1.The security bond should clearly state whether the property described belongs exclusively to the surety or whether it belongs to the minor judgment-debtors.2. An affidavit stating the interest of the surety in the property shou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›