Chennai Court April 1948 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.
Vedachala Gramani Vs. Sivasankari Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ241
Panchapagesa, J.1. The plaintiff Vedachala Gramani filed O.S. No. 90 of 1946 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to set aside an order rejecting the petition for redelivery of properties from which he had been dispossessed by the first defendant in the action. Pending trial the first defendant died on the 23rd November, 1946 leaving behind him his wife Devaki Ammal and a daughter by name Sivasankari Ammal, wife of Sendilvelu Mudaliar of Sembiam. The plaintiff then filed an application to bring on record Devaki Ammal as legal representative of the deceased first defendant within three months from the date of death and the lower Court accordingly directed that the wife should be brought on record as the sixth defendant. During the course of that enquiry it appeared that Singaravelu Mudaliar had left a will in and by which the said property was bequeathed to his daughter Sivasankari Ammal. On the 27th February the widow was im-pleaded as the sixth defendant...
The Official Trustee of Madras as Receiver Vs. S.V.L.L. Sethu Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ194
Govindarajachari, J.1. Under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act a creditor filed I.P. No. 11 of 1935 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore to adjudge two brothers, Govindaraju Nadar and Duraiswami Nadar, as insolvents, naming as the act of insolvency a mortgage given by them to Nawab Abdul Hakim on 27th December, 1934. The mortgagee, however, was not impleaded. The insolvency petition passed through several vicissitudes but finally an order of adjudication was made in 1938. The Official Receiver of North Arcot in whom were vested the estates of the insolvents filed I.A. No. 1163 of 1942 under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act for setting aside the mortgage. After enquiry the application was dismissed and the Official Receiver appealed from that order to the District Court of North Arcot in C.M.A. No. 40 of 1943.2. Meanwhile Nawab Abdul Hakim died in January, 1938. In a suit for partition on the file of this Court, C.S. No. 36 of 1938, the mortgage was allotted to Abdul S...
Ponnath Kalyani Amma's son Eacharan Nair Vs. Cherikkottil Sayed Rowthe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ256
Govindarajachari, J.1. The petitioner is the legatee under a will of two ladies, Amman and Channammu, of a mortgage executed in their favour on 8th June, 1931, by the respondent. The mortgage was repayable on 13th July, 1932. The 'respondent was adjudged insolvent on 3rd January, 1933, but the adjudication was annulled on 27th August, 1943. The suit out of which this civil revision petition arises was filed on 13th July, 1944, for a money decree, the plaintiff having given up his security. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner relied on Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and sought an exclusion of the period from the date of the order of adjudication to the date of the order of annulment. It is not denied that if that exclusion is made, the suit would be in time. It was however contended by the respondent, and that contention found favour with the Court below, that Section 78(2) of the Act did not apply beca...
Chaganty Katamraju Vs. Madavarappu Paripurnanandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ301
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application to amend the description of item 1 of the plaint schedule and the decree schedule in a suit which was ultimately disposed of by this Court in S.A. No. 1607 of 1945, by substituting for old survey No. 23 corresponding to Re-Survey No. 17/1 Re-survey No. 23/1 corresponding to revision Survey No. 27/1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit which was for recovery of several items of property on the allegation that they were properties which originally belonged to one Chelamayya and the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were the nearest reversions of the said Chelamayya. The third defendant was made a party as evidently interested in item 1, and the case proceeded in both the lower Courts and in this Court on the footing that the third defendant was interested in item 1 of the plaint schedule. After the disposal of the second appeal by this Court, the plaintiff discovered that an error had crept into the description of the first item...
In Re: Narasingamuthu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ118; (1948)2MLJ93
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner in these revision petitions, who is the same, was prosecuted in the Court of the joint Magistrate of Tuticorin for failure to submit the 'A' return, as required by K. 11 (1), Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules 1939, an offence punishable under Section 15 (a) and (c), Madras General Bales Tax Act. The proceedings before the joint Magistrate were summary in nature and except for a tabulated statement no judgment or a reasoned order was pronounced. The petitioner was convicted of the offence complained of and sentenced to pay a fine of es. 200, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Against this conviction and sentence, Cri App, NO. 65 of 1946 was filed by him before the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly and the learned Judge holding that under Section 414, Criminal P. C, no appeal lay from the conviction and sentence of a First Class Magistrate exercising summary powers, rejected the appeal. Against...
Mulukulla Kumaraswami Vs. Ghantasala Mahalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ232
1. These are two appeals by father and son, judgment debtors in O.S. No. 107 of 1934 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada. They arise out of two applications under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside a sale held on 20th June, 1941. The decree-holder was herself the purchaser. She purchased the properties in question which were sold as one lot for Rs. 1,010.2. Applications were made in 1938 for the scaling down of the decree. The scaling down proceedings passed through several vicissitudes which it is unnecessary to follow.3. At the time when the sale was held, and in fact at the time of the filing of E.P. No. 548 of 1940 in which the sale was held, the applications for scaling down stood dismissed and the amount due under the decree together with, execution costs stood, according to the execution, petition at the figure of Rs. 1,131-5-5.4. By reason of certain orders of this Court and consequential orders passed by the Court of the Subo...
Datla Sanyasi Seetharamaraju Vs. Datla Satyanarayanamurthi Raju and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ259
Govindarajachari, J.1. The only question that arises in these appeals is whether a usufructuary mortgagee of a post-settlement inam is a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. There is abundant authority in support of an affirmative answer (vide Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi I.L.R. (1912)Mad. 33. Subramania v. Muthiah Chettiar (1915) I.L.W. 1004. Kallalagar Devasthanam v. Anthony Moopan (1924) 48 M.L.J. 147 and Vallachami v. Thiruvaroor Devasthanam : AIR1935Mad452 . The learned District Judge refers only to the third of these decisions and his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the other three which are decisions of Division Benches. After referring to Kallalagar Devasthanam v. Anthony Mooppan (1924) 48 M.L.J. 147 which is the decision of a single Judge, the learned District Judge says that he is unable to follow it, in view of a later decision, also of a single Judge, in Nallakakkan Ambalam v. Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam : AIR1926Mad156 . This last de...
K.N. Adikesavalu Naidu Vs. Manni Munuswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ486
Panchapakesa Sastri, J.1. The respondent in this appeal filed the suit to enforce a mortgage, dated 9th October, 1918, executed in his favour by defendants 1 and 2 in the action. The appellant was impleaded as the third defendant because he had a second mortgage dated 20th November, 1918, in his favour. The present suit for sale was filed on the 24th December, 1942. The appellant had filed a suit of his own on his mortgage, O.S. No. 75 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Trivellore, on 6th January, 1930, and obtained a preliminary decree. On 7th October, 1930, defendants 1 and 2 the mortgagors, sold a portion of the hypotheca to the present plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 300 in satisfaction of the mortgage amount due to him under his mortgage, dated 9th October, 1918. Possession of the properties sold was delivered over to the plaintiff who continued to enjoy the rents and profits thereof down to 1942. The appellant brought the properties to sale in execution of his own mo...
A.B.M.S. Mohamed Ali Maracoir and ors. Vs. P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ191
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. G. Ramakrishna Aiyar on behalf of the respondent to the maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal. In an appeal against a decree of the learned City Civil Judge in O.S. No. 478 of 1944, which was for recovery of damages for breach of contract Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., directed the trial Court to take fresh evidence that may be adduced by the parties on issue 7 in the case as regards the difference in the price of the goods on the date of receipt and the date of delivery and send up its findings on the evidence so recorded.2. It was contended by Mr. Ahmed Meeran for the appellants that the appeal is competent because the learned Judge had decided that the plaintiff would be entitled to damages for breach of warranty and has only called for a finding to enable him to pass a decree and that that part of the learned Judge's order which decided his liability was a judgment within clause 15 of the Letters Patent ...
T. Radhakrishna Chettiar Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ159
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a reference made to the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the valuation of the property belonging to the appellant which was acquired under the Act. The date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was 24th November, 1942. The property acquired is a site measuring 7156 sq. ft. with a building thereon and wells and trees, situated in Town survey No. 2202 of the second ward of the Kumbakonam municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the site separately at Rs. 2236-4-0 calculating at the rate of five annas per sq. ft. He valued the house, compound wall, latrine and two wells at Rs. 1041 and the trees at Rs. 132-8-0. On the aggregate of Rs. 3409-12-0 he allowed the statutory allowance of 15 per cent, and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3921-3-5. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the award in toto.2. In appeal it is conceded on behalf of the appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »