Chennai Court January 1947 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.
Minor Kandaswami Pillai and anr. Vs. T.N.C. Kandaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad372; (1947)1MLJ203
Horwill, J.1. On 18th April, 1933, I.P. No. 27 of 1933 was filed to adjudicate the father of the petitioners herein an insolvent; and he was adjudged an insolvent on the 1st November, 1934. On the 8th March, 1940, the adjudication was annulled, because the insolvent had not applied for discharge within the time allowed; but at the same time the Court passed an order directing that the property should continue to vest in the Official Receiver. The first petitioner was born in April, 1934, and the second petitioner in May, 1939. They filed O.P. No. 37 of 1944 for permission to sue in forma pauperis to have the sale of their shares in the properties sold by the Official Receiver in 1939 and 1942 set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations contained in the draft plaint showed no cause of action.2. It is argued here that as far as the first petitioner was concerned, he was born before his father was adjudicated an insolvent and so was e...
Gadiraju Bangarayya and anr. Vs. Gottemukkula Ramabhadriraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad315; (1947)1MLJ155
Horwill, J.1. The matter in dispute in O.S. No. 57 of 1943 was referred to arbitrators and an award was filed on 21st November, 1944. On that date, the Court posted the suit For objections to 2nd December, 1944. On the adjourned date, the defendants filed objections ; but the plaintiff was satisfied with the award and filed none. It was then posted for enquiry to 11th January, 1945. On that date, a preliminary objection was taken by the plaintiff that the objections of the defendants could not be heard ; because under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act the Court was bound to pass a decree in terms of the award, unless a party applied to the Court to have the award set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld this objection, rejected the objections filed by the defendants, and passed a decree in terms of the award.2. It is not denied in this Court that the appellants should have filed an application to set aside the award ; but they can reasonably say that they were misled by the orde...
Nagi Reddi Seetharami Reddi and anr. Vs. Thikkavarapu Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad431; (1947)1MLJ156
Bell, J.1. This appeal arises out of an execution petition No. 15 of 1945, filed in the District Court of Nellore, in O.S. No. 91 of 1932. The decree-holders obtained their decree on 6th December, 1932, and in the course of subsequent execution proceedings it was, in 1933, transferred for execution to the District Munsiff's Court, Nellore. On 4th December, 1044, within two days of the period of limitation laid down by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the execution petition now in question was filed, the decree-holders asking: (a) that the decree transmitted in 1933 to the District Munsiff's Court should be ordered to be re-transmitted to the-District Court; (b) for the issue of notice to the judgment-debtors and (c) for attachment and sale of their immoveable properties. On 1st August, 1945, the District Judge made the following order:It is open to the applicant to treat this petition as a step-in-aid of execution and invoke its aid when he files the next execution petition. ...
In Re: S.K.V. Krishnavatharam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad117; (1947)2MLJ191
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner is the 45th respondenfin M.C. No. 11 of 1946, before the District Magistrate, West Godavari and is an advocate practising at Ellore. Along with the rest he was served with an order dated 10th December, 1946, under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code passed ex parte prohibiting him inter alia from holding meetings and processions and doing picketing and other demonstrations to incite and provoke peaceful workers employed in the various organisations in the Ellore Municipal area and in the immediate vicinity. On 16th December, 1946, an application was made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate to rescind the order after holding an enquiry, and it is stated by Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar for the petitioner that the petitioner had then at hand 8 witnesses to be examined. The District Magistrate refused to examine any witnesses and dismissed the petition. In his order dated 23rd December, 1946, dismissing the petition the District Magistrate says ...
M.A.C. Arunachala Mudaliar and anr. Vs. M.V. Jagannatha Mudaliar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ399
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. There was a first mortgage by defendants 1 and 2 to defendants 3 and 4 on the 21st June, 1930. There was a second mortgage on the 24th September, 1930, by them in favour of the plaintiffs. Finally, there was a sale deed in favour of defendants 3 and 4 for Rs. 11,275-14-9 of the mortgaged properties. The deeds are Ex D-1, P-1 and D-2 respectively. In a suit upon the second mortgage, Ex. P-1, the lower Courts have held that defendants 3 and 4 are accountable for the profits on the mortgaged properties from the date of the sale in their favour, viz., the 17th May, 1934. This decision is challenged in this second appeal preferred by defendants 3 and 4 who say that they occupied two capacities, viz., a capacity as prior mortgagees under Ex. D-1 and a capacity as purchasers of the equity of redemption under Ex. D-2 and that the two capacities should be kept distinct so far as the puisne mortgagees are concerned who have to redeem their mortgage Ex. D-1, by payment ...
P. Kesanna Vs. Boya Bala Gangappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad297; (1947)1MLJ201
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondents and their brother, Pedda Gangappa, were members of a joint Hindu family. The family became divided in 1913 and, according to the respondents, the lands forming the joint estate were divided between the brothers. Pedda Gangappa died in 1933. These petitions arise out of suits filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsif of Bellary to recover the properties which had been allotted to them at the partition. Each alleged that he had been given possession of his share but had been dispossessed by the petitioner, an alienee from the widow of Pedda Gangappa. The reliefs sought were valued at ten times the land revenue which was payable. The petitioner contended that the respondents were bound in law to value the reliefs asked for in accordance with the market values of the properties claimed by them and consequently he asked the District Munsif to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the market values. The respondents objected. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›