Chennai Court November 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.
Melagiri Venkatarao Vs. Karnam Vyasa Rao Alias Dasappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad364
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the District Judge of Anantapur dismissing the application of the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis.2. The petitioner failed to reveal in the schedule attached to his application all the property in his possession; and the lower Court was of opinion that this failure to disclose was wilful and showed lack of good faith. Following the decision in Chellammal v. Muthulakhmi Ammal (1945) 58 M.L.W. 21 he dismissed the application, quoting the following words of the learned Chief Justice:The utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive may be must result in the dismissal of the petition.It is argued that even if the petitioner had revealed all the property in his possession, it would not only have been included in the schedule to his application but also in the schedule to the plaint; and so for the pur...
Kuppuswami Nainar Vs. Rangaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ374
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is governed by the decision of a Bench of this Court reported in Khadir Sahib v. Viswanatha Iyer : AIR1943Mad297 which was approved by the Full Bench in Seshagiri Rao v. Subbarami Reddi : AIR1945Mad154 . The decree-holder is the appellant. He obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on 28th August, 1935. The first execution petition was filed on 29th August, 1938, which was rejected on' 14th October, 1938. The present execution application was filed on 23rd January, 1943, more than three years from the date of the final order on the prior execution petition. In order to save limitation for this execution petition he relies upon an unnumbered execution application filed by him on 10th October, 1941, and returned on 13th October, 1941, for filing sale papers, filling up blanks and paying batta. Two weeks time was granted for complying with these requisitions and the petition was re-presented a day after the expiry of the two weeks...
Sri Rama Vilas Service, Limited Vs. the Road Traffic Board by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad400; (1948)1MLJ85
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal by Kunhi Raman, J., of an application for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, analogous to the high prerogative writ of mandamus. The appellant company was the applicant; the respondent is the Road Traffic Board, Madras, which was constituted by the Provincial Government pursuant to Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles. Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Prayer (c) in the application solely arises in this appeal by which an order was sought directing the respondent to consider the applicant's application under Section 45 of the Act, dated 24th February, 1947, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, for renewal of permits for a number of buses to ply for hire as stage carriages, and that the respondent should ignore the executive order issued by the Provincial Government, Madras, in G.O. No. 3898 (Home), dated 9th December, 1946. In dismissing the applicatio...
Katragadda Brahmayya, Minor by Mother and Guardian Katragadda Jagadamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ96
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Repalle in which the plaintiff (respondent) claimed possession, rent and mesne profits in respect of two acres 59 cents of agricultural minor inam land from defendants 1, 2 and 3 (appellants 1, 2 and 3); no claim was made against defendant 4 (appellant 4) nor against defendants 5 and 6 (respondents 2 and 3); the last two named parties were joined, pro forma, as they were vendors of the land in suit to the plaintiff whose claim they supported. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit; an appeal by the plaintiff to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali was allowed; a second appeal by defendants 1 to 4 to this Court was dismissed by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who, on the ground that difficult questions were involved, granted a certificate to prefer an appeal pursuant to the Letters Patent of the Court; upon that appeal coming before a Bench, reference was m...
Kandaswami Mudali Vs. K.R. Narasimha Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad280; (1948)1MLJ333
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore setting aside a sale at the instance of the -98th defendant, who is interested in item 4 and who came forward with an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging that it had been agreed between him and the decree-holders and the assignee-decree-holders that the property was not to be brought to sale on his payment of Rs. 1500 and that as a matter of fact, he paid the amount, which was passed on to the decree-holders. The Subordinate Judge held that this agreement had been proved and that the sale of the property contrary to the agreement amounted to a fraud on the part of the decree-holder. He also found that the property was sold for an under-value. The auction purchaser had no kowledge of the agreement.2. Thus, it is a case where we have to decide which of two innocent parties should suffer--the 98th defendant or the ...
A.S. Duraiswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Muhammad AmiruddIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad434; (1948)1MLJ441
Bell, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 500 of 1930 on the Original Side of this High Court against a udgment of Kunhi Raman, J., rejecting their application to scale down the decree debt against them. They sought to apply the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, which says in effect that all interest on a decree debt outstanding on the 1st October, 1937, shall be deemed to be discharged on that date, when a debt is being scaled down under the provisions of the Act.2. The decree in question was passed on the 10th April, 1931, and by consent a sum of Rs. 36,300 together with Rs. 600 for costs was agreed to be due. The judgment-debtors in the years which followed endeavoured to pay off some of their liabilities and paid on one occasion Rs. 15,000, which payment was certified and in respect of which part satisfaction was duly recorded. Later on Rs. 10,000 was paid, and again, the same formalities were compl...
Penukonda Rathakrishnamurthy Vs. Ganamukala Chengalraya Chetty Chalama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad365; (1948)1MLJ164
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an applicaticn by the appellant, under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to set aside an award of an umpire to whom matters in controversy in an arbitration had been referred, upon disagreement by two arbitrators. The arbitration related to five contracts between the appellant, as seller and the first respondent (hereinafter called the respondent), as buyer, of various quantities of yarn. The arbitrators agreed regarding two contracts of December 1941 vaida or delivery. They disagreed with regard to three remaining contracts, which were for January 1942 vaida. The arbitrators made two awards (1) with respect to the two contracts upon which they agreed and (2) respecting the three contracts upon which they disagreed. The matters relating to the three contracts, where there had been disagreement, were referred for decision to the umpire who was the second respondent in the applicaticn and who is the second respondent in th...
Mythili Ammal and ors. Vs. R. Mahadeva Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad433; (1948)1MLJ400
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore granting leave to the first respondent to sue as a pauper. Three questions were raised before the learned Subordinate Judge by the con-testing respondents: (1) Whether the applicant was a pauper; (2) whether the allegations in the application show a cause of action; (3) whether the suit is barred by law. On all the three points the learned Judge found in favour of the applicant and granted leave. So far as points 1 and 2 are concerned there is no ground for interference in revision here. So far as the third point is concerned the learned Judge, in my opinion, has not correctly interpreted the provision in Order 33 Rule 5, Clause (d-1) and Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The view of the learned Judge is that this question also can be decided only on the bare allegations in the petition and that the contesting respondents were not entitled to adduce any evidence. The rule...
S. Subba Rao Vs. Mangavalli Venkataseshacharlu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ128
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned District Judge of Cuddappah confirming the order of the learned District Munsiff of Cuddappah made in E.A. No. 435 of 1943. The second respondent in the execution application is the appellant in this Court.2. The Co-operative Society, Cuddappah, obtained an award decree, dated 6th June, 1930, in respect of a mortgage debt against one Ambakka. That decree was assigned by the Co-operative Society to one Subba Rao, the appellant in this appeal on 12th February, 1931. On the 25th November, 1933, Ambakka conveyed all the properties belonging to her to one Muneyya. On the 16th January, 1935, Ambakka died. In E.P. No. 1935, Subba Rao executed the award decree against Muneyya and the properties mortgaged was sold. On 12th July, 1937, Muneyya executed a mortgage in favour of one Seshacharlu for a sum of Rs. 600 borrowed by him for financing a litigation. This mortgage was created against a house belonging to Ambakka and sold by her to...
Shaik Abdul Nabhi Saheb Vs. Marti Ramalakshmammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ62
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal by leave from the decision of Rajamannar, J., pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court.2. The relevant facts can shortly be stated. The plaintiff, appellant here, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Guntur. At the trial, it was dismissed as being not maintainable on some preliminary objection, the merits not having been considered. That dismissal was set aside upon appeal by the plaintiff to the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur who, on the 31st January, 1947, directed the suit to be remanded for disposal by the learned District Munsiff. Shortly thereafter, the 7th defendant, respondent before us, preferred an application for review to the learned Subordinate Judge. The grounds of review manifest clearly and unequivocally that the application was for the purpose of setting aside the whole of the previous order and decree of the Subordinate Judge directing the suit to be tried. No other relief is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »