Chennai Court September 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.
Kannuri Venkata Chalapathi Rao Vs. Devineni Kanchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ185
1. The appellant was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 354 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Gudivada. That was a suit for money. There was first an ex parte decree on 16th July, 1937, but on the application of the appellant the ex parte decree was set aside. As a condition of the setting aside of the ex parte decree the judgment-debtor was directed to give security of immoveable property for the satisfaction of any decree which may be passed in the suit after trial. The appellant accordingly executed a security bond on 5th November, 1937, giving the prescribed security. The suit was then tried and again resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent in this civil miscellaneous second appeal, on 15th December, 1937. The respondent executed his decree against the property which was given as security. He did not attach that property and it is fairly clear from the execution record that he was intending to and believed that he could enforce ...
Dakshinamoorthi Kandar Vs. Ponnuswami Alias Karuppa Kandar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ65
Tyagarajan, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem refusing the plaintiff's application to set aside the dismissal for default of a suit which had been filed in forma pauperis. The application purported to be one made under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Two objections were taken by the contesting defendants, viz., (1) that the order of the lower Court dismissing the suit was one made under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code and that consequently no application to set aside the dismissal would lie under Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code and (2) that in any event there was no sufficient cause which would justify the setting aside of the dismissal. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the first objection holding that the dismissal of the suit was under Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code, but on the merits he held that there was no sufficient cause and dismissed the application.2. The facts relevant to the determination of this appeal are ...
Munia Servai Vs. Thanagaraya Onturiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ253
ORDERGovinda Menon J.1. The petitioner Seeks to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam passed under Section 145, Criminal P. C. under the following circumstances.2. The property in dispute of an area of 66 acres and odd originally belonged to the Tanjore Palace estate. Subsequent to the decision of the Privy Council in the litigation which began with O. S. No, 8 of 1919 on the file of the District Court, Tanjore, various claimants got possession of portions of that State. The subject-matter of this dispute as well as other properties were mortgaged by an executor of one of the claim, anta to a Yagappa Nadar and two others in 1982 for a sum of Bs. 30.000. The entire mortgage right subsequently vested in Yagappa Nadar and he thereby became the sole mortgagee. The equity of redemption in these and other properties was purchased by C. p. w. l on 14th July 1946, who discharged the mortgage in favour of Yagappa Nadar and claimed to have got possession of thes...
Munia Servai Vs. Thangaraya Onturiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ209
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam passed tinder Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances.2. The property in dispute of an area of 66 acres and odd originally belonged to the Tanjore Palace estate. Subsequent to the decision of the Privy Council in the litigation which began with O.S. No. 3 of 1919 on the file of the District Court, Tanjore, various claimants got possession of portions of that estate. The subject-matter of this dispute as well as other properties were mortgaged by an executor of one of the claimants to a Yagappa Nadar and two others in 1932 for a sum of Rs. 30,000. The entire mortgage right subsequently vested in Yagappa Nadar and he thereby became the sole mortgagee. The equity of redemption in these and other properties was purchased by C.P.W. 1 on 14th July 1945, who discharged the mortgage in favour of Yagappa Nadar and claimed to have got po...
Maddela Nagabhushanam and ors. Vs. Velampalli Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ538
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal is by the respondents in I.A. No. 1493 f ig43 in O.S. No. 17 of 1923 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla. That was a suit for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple of Sri Chennakesavaswami Varu of Santhanuthalapadu village. By the decree in that suit a scheme was framed, the material clause of which for the purpose of this appeal is Clause 8 which runs as follows:The trust properties in the enjoyment of the service holders of the suit temple shall be continued in the possession of the respective service holders so long as they are in office rendering approved and satisfactory service. The various service holders shall be subject to the control of the Board of the trustees appointed under the scheme but are liable to be dismissed from office only by the Court on application there to by the trustees and on proof of misconduct and on such dismissal the properties in their possession shall revert to the trust.2. Defendant...
A.K. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. L.A.K. Lakshmana Aiyar Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ437
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appellant is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 141 of 1932 wherein a sum exceeding Rs. 12,000 was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly on the 31st August, 1933. In execution of the decree the decree-holder instituted E.P. No. 392 of 1934 for sale of certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor, which had been attached pending suit. Sale was ordered and on the 20th November, 1935, the decree-holder became the purchaser. The sale was confirmed on 27th July, 1936 and part satisfaction of the decree was recorded in respect of the net sale proceeds. Two of the items of property sold were houses Nos. 9 and 10, Sayakara Street, Trichinopoly. In order to obtain possession, the decree-holder instituted E.A. No. 857 of 1936 and possession was ordered. When the Amin went to give delivery to the decree-holder, on 12th November, 1936, obstruction was offered by one Ayyammal, the widow of the judgment-debtor's brother. She claimed right o...
Sreemanthu Rajah Y.S.R. Prasad, Zamindar of Devakota and ors. Vs. Koll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ459
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. In proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the Lankas in dispute under the second proviso to Section 145 (4) and directed the Tahsildar to sell the cultivation rights by public auction of each plot separately and submit the sale list and bidders' list to him. Accordingly the Tahsildar sold the rights to a number of bidders and submitted the list. Whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on complaint by certain others cancelled the order of the Tahsildar and directed the cultivation rights to be given to various persons as stated in his order, dated 17th July, 1947. It is this order that is now sought to be revised on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to set aside the auction sale held by the Tahsildar. In Srinivasa Pillai v. Sathayappa Pillai 14 Ind.Cas. 759 Sankaran Nair, J., has laid down that a receiver appointed under Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedu...
Somasundara Mudali and ors. Vs. Thiruppathuran Alias Nagappa Mudali an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ551
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This matter comes before us upon a reference by Rajamannar, J., of a point to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Bench. The point is a short one and is as follows : When an application is made ex park by an appellant in an appeal for an injunction restraining the respondent from doing some act pending the disposal of the appeal and the Court grants are interim order of injunction until disposal of the application, and upon the hearing of the application the injunction is confirmed or continued until disposal of the appeal, whether batta can be demanded in addition to the batta which was paid upon the passing of the interim order.2. It would seem that on the 19th October, 1932, Bardswell, J., in C.M.P. No. 1431 of 1932 expressed the opinion that fresh batta is payable upon the issue of a final injunction, even though batta had already been paid after the issue of an interim injunction. The above report is found in (1932) 36 L. W. page 48 of the Sum...
V. Seetharama Chettiar Vs. T.R. Muthukrishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ553
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem dismissing an execution petition on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of Article 182 of the Limitation Act.2. No appearance has been made on behalf of the respondent, judgment-debtor. Mr. T. K. Srinivasathathachari has appeared for the appellant-decree-holder and has given us very frankly and fully all the facts and, I am sure, all the relevant authorities. So the absence of the respondent or any one appearing on his behalf has not occasioned any harm.3. The petition was instituted on 24th June, 1944, with respect to a decree for a considerable sum of money passed in O.S. No. 58 of 1934 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Salem on the 25th November, 1935, for execution against the third defendant judgment-debtor alone. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was barred inasmuch as more than three years had expired since there had been a final order of dispo...
Oor Nayakkan Alias Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Ps.Ar.Ar. Arunachal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad245; (1947)2MLJ496
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Salem under Order 46, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two suits for recovery of damages for wrongfully cutting trees in certain poromboke land were instituted by the same plaintiff against different defendants on the original side of the District Munsiff of Namakkal. He paid Court-fee on the footing that they were original suits and the plaints in the two suits raised also the question of title to the land in which the trees were standing. Without objection by the defendants the suits were tried as original suits presumably because they raised a question of title and were decreed by the learned District Munsiff. The defendants preferred appeals to the District Court and even in their memorandum of grounds of appeal the defendants did not raise any objection as to the jurisdiction of the learned District Munsiff to try the suits as original suits. When the appeals came on for hearing the point was raised...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »