Chennai Court December 1948 Judgments
A. Krishna Raya Kodgi and anr. Vs. Sankayya Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ196
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They brought the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 756-13-10 being the arrears of mulgeni rent together with enhanced assessment payable to the Government, due from the defendant on the basis of a mulgeni chit, dated 14th May, 1900, Ex. P. 1, being the counter part of the mulgeni chit. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that the amount really due and payable by the defendant has been deposited by him in the Court in O. P. Nos. 21 of 1938, 33 of 1939 and 37 of 1942 in full discharge of the liability and that it is open to the plaintiffs to draw the money from Court and satisfy their claim. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 2. Mr. T. Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has raised four contentions on this appeal. His first contention is that Ex. P. 1 merely creates a charge for the unpaid arrear of rent on the mulgeni holding and the improve...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Chakrapani Iyer Vs. Ammalu Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ245
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application made under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring the petitioner on record as a party respondent in S.A. No. 724 of 1948, The second appeal arises out of a suit, O. S. No. 347 of 1943, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Palghat. It was a suit for recovery of possession of certain property and for other reliefs. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first defendant filed A. S. No. 46 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff, who was the 1st respondent therein, died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 and 3. They assigned their rights in the suit property to one Allu Achan Menon, who was impleaded in the appeal as the 4th respondent. He, in his turn, transferred his rights in the property to the petitioner herein, by a deed dated 30th May, 1947. The appeal was disposed of on 28th June, 1947, without the petitioner being impleaded a...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Alias Alagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Rm. A. Rm. V. Ramanathan Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ298
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1942, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. The suit was instituted on 9th September, 1939, in that Court but subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and again re-transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai and numbered as above. The plaintiffs prayed for the taking of the accounts of a partnership which stood dissolved on 23rd May, 1927, by the death of a partner whose interest had devolved on them. The appeal is mainly directed against the directions contained in the judgment and decree of the Court below as regards the taking of the accounts of the dissolved firm.2. The parties to the suit are Nattukottai Chetties, well known indigenous bankers, of South India, mostly resident in the districts of Madura and Ramnad, whose business activities however extend to Burma, Ceylon and the Federated Malay Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Samayamanthula Parvata Vardhanamma Vs. Villa Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ382
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The third respondent in the lower Court seeks to have the order of the District Judge of East Godavari in O.P. No. 11 of 1946 set aside in revision. Sri Visweswaraswami Temple of Inavilli village owned lands of an extent of 2 acres 18 cents in the vicinity of the village fit for building sites. The third respondent owned an extent of 1 acre 60 cents of wet land in a neighbouring village. By an order of the Hindu Religious Endownments Board passed under Section 76, Madras Act II of 1927 dated 19th March, 1945, sanction was accorded to an exchange of these properties as between the temple and the third respondent, on the ground that the exchange was beneficial to the temple. It appears that this exchange was sanctioned on the assumption that the property of the temple sought to be alienated by way of exchange was worth about Rs. 1,500. The deed of exchange was duly executed on the 24th of August, 1945 by the executive officer of the temple and the third respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Vootla Viriah and ors. Vs. Tadepalli Subba Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ316
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of an application, under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code filed by the appellants herein, before the lower Court for setting aside a sale in which the contesting respondents 7 and 8 were the purchasers of certain items of property sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1910 on the file of the District Court of Kistna. The learned Subordinate Judge of Baptala held that the appellants as petitioners in the Court below did not have any interest in the property sold so as to entitle them to apply under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, and dismissed the application.2. A few facts have to be stated in order that the position may be understood, clearly. The properties which are the subject matter of the sale belonged to one Nawab Hassanali Khan Bahadur and were sold by him under Ex. P-1 dated 5th. February, 1920 to the first appellant and the father of the second appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 45,000; but pri...
Tag this Judgment!Buddu Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Konduru Venkatappaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad586
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, decreeing the suit filed by the Executive Officer of Sri Somasekhara Swami temple of Kotipalli, hamlet of Donepudi, for possession of the suit properties. The origin of the temple is lost in antiquity. The suit properties, extending about 93 acres and 33 cents were granted in inam to the deity by the late Janganna Rao the then zamindar of Rachur in Fasli 1179, i. e., corresponding to 1770 A. D. The properties granted were only dry lands and they continued to be so till recently when they were converted into wet land. In or about 1860 it appears that the income from these lands was only Rs. 266-3-1. Though in the pleadings it was assumed that the zamindars of Rachur were the hereditary trustees of the suit temple it does not appear that in the year 1860 they were the trustees of the suit temple, or, at any rate, that the hereditary trustees were in active management of the in...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rm. Athimuthu Nadar Vs. K.C.K. Subramania Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ330
Mack, J.1. This revision petition raises an unusual question of court-fee, one without precedent in my own experience and as regards which there is no decided case. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 1948 filed in the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, by the respondent as plaintiff to recover Rs. 20,804-9-6 on alleged advances made from time to time. This suit was filed on 6th January, 1948. The petitioner on 5th January, 1948, as plaintiff filed another suit O.S. No. 3 of 1948 against the respondent to recover Rs. 3,166 from him on dealings after adjusting Rs. 20,000 advanced by the respondent to him. This suit was numbered as O.S. No. 3 of 1948. It may be taken that both the plaints were under simultaneous preparation and it cannot be really said that one was filed in advance of the other. In O.S. No. 2 of 1948, the written statement filed by the petitioner is on the same lines as his plaint in O.S. No. 3 of 1948. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, accepted a strenuous content...
Tag this Judgment!Karavadi Manikya Rao Vs. Nalluri Adenna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ291
Mack, J.1. This petition raises really a very simple point for determination whether one trustee after the death of two co-trustees can sue a tenant, who took a land belonging to the trust on lease, for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned District Munsiff answered this question in the negative and dismissed a suit filed by the petitioner to recover Rs. 69-14-0 arrears of rent from the defendant on the ground that the two co-trustees who had joined in execution of a five years' lease on 30th June, 1939, in favour of the defendant were dead and their legal representatives had not been impleaded.2. The short facts are these. The trust property in question of an unusual type, namely, a village tank 7 acres and 29 1/2 cents, was leased out for five years to the defendant on 30th June, 1939, on a rental of Rs. 180 a year. It is common ground that the lease deed describes the plaintiff and two other executants as dharmakarthas of this cheruvu. The suit sought to recover only a balance of...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Tirumal Rao Vs. T. Ranganatha Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ280
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. On the respondent's application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, passed on 30th March, 1948, an order for eviction against the petitioner. The respondent took out proceedings to execute the order and went with the bailiff to take delivery of the premises on 22nd April, 1948. On that day the petitioner passed a letter to the respondent in the following terms:As you have brought a warrant of possession against me in the above E.P. for the ground-floor No. 93, Thagaraja Rao, Thyagarayanagar, I request you time for today and I assure you that I will give complete possession of the said place by to-night.2. The petitioner however did not give possession but filed an appeal and obtained an order for stay of delivery on 24th April, 1948. When the appeal came on for hearing before the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Goundan Vs. Vasantharoya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ373
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in O.S. No. 39 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem against a preliminary decree for partition passed therein. The suit was originally instituted by seventeen persons, but as the 13th plaintiff died pending suit, plaintiffs 18 to 21 were added as his legal representatives, and when the suit came up for hearing, there were twenty-one plaintiffs. There were six defendants. The suit for partition was based on the allegation that the plaintiffs and defendants were members of a joint Hindu family and the properties set out in the plaint schedule belonged to them as members of the family. The suit was contested only by defendants 1 and 3 who admitted the relationship set out in the pedigree filed along with the plaint so far as their relationship with plaintiffs 1 to 3 was concerned, but denied that plaintiffs 4 to 21 were related to them (defendants) in the manner set out in the pedigree. The contesting defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »