Chennai Court January 1949 Judgments
Marneedi Satyam Vs. Masimukkula Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ434
Raghava Rao, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this second appeal arises is a tiled house and site sought to be recovered by the plaintiff (the appellant before me) on the basis of a sale deed in favour of his father executed by one Suranna, the original owner, on 30th August, 1924. The defendants-respondents resisted the action on the ground of a sale deed in their favour by the decree-holder auction purchaser in a suit instituted by a creditor of Suranna, who had obtained an attachment before judgment of the property in question on the very date of Suranna's sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father. The main issue for trial in the present suit was whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was nominally executed in fraud of the. creditors of Suranna, as alleged by the defendants. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court both having held against the plaintiff on this issue, he has preferred this second appeal in which having heard arguments on 18th Janua...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rangaswamy Iyer Vs. Thd Madura Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ384
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is Sri A. Rangaswami Iyer, said to be a leading pleader of the Madura Bar. He finds himself in the strange position of being a judgment-debtor in execution proceedings for the attachment of his law books and moveables on two decrees passed against him for costs in two unsuccessful suits he filed as trustee of two funds. The learned Subordinate Judge found that he was personally liable on these decrees and directed execution to proceed.2. The short facts as admitted before me are these: The petitioner got himself appointed as trustee by Court in O.P. No. 57 of 1936 of two old funds, one the Madura Provincial Conference Fund and the other the Governor's Reception Committee Fund, which had deposited their moneys in the Madura Urban Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Some years after his appointment he sued for recovery of the deposits of these two funds in O.S. No. 27 of 1941 for about Rs. 3,000 and in S.G. No. 41 of 1942, both on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madura, ...
Tag this Judgment!Alluru Bapanayya Vs. Chintalapati Bangarraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ479
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram in A.S. No. 81 of 1945, dismissing her suit: filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act for directing the sale deed, Ex. P-1, dated 5th November, 1943, executed by the defendant, to be registered by the-Sub-Registrar of Razole. The suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground:that the defendant did not execute the deed understanding it to be a sale deed and that his finger impression was taken by representing that he has to attest a document, i.e., sale deed executed by his brother in favour of plaintiff. The defendant, who is an illiterate person unable to sign his name, did not, in his-written statement, dispute the fact that the thumb impression appearing on the two pages of the sale deed, Ex. P-1, was this thumb impression. He stated, however, that his brother obtained his thumb impression on Ex. P-1 on a fraudulent misrepresentation...
Tag this Judgment!Kalla Surayya and Sons Represented by Kalla Venkataraju Vs. the Provin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ379
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition was referred to a Bench by Mack, j., as he felt that there was a necessity for an authoritative decision as to the correct Court-fee payable on plaints like the one before him.2. The petitioner filed the suit in the lower Court (in the Court of the District Munsiff, Rajahmundry) (a) for a declarationthat the order of assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 24th March, 1946', was illegal so far as it related to the plaintiff's commission business for the year 1944-45 (b) and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting sales-tax on the plaintiff's commission business for 1944-45 (c) and for a further injunction restraining the defendants from lowing sales-tax for the subsequent years on the plaintiff's commission business.In respect of relief (a) he paid a Court-fee of Rs. 15 under Article 17-A(i) and in respect of reliefs (b) and (c) he paid a Court-fee under Section 7(iv) valuing the subject-matter at R...
Tag this Judgment!Thathi Naicker Vs. the Co-operative Society, Through Its President, Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ393
Rajagopaban, J.1. The plaintiff is the assignee-decree-holder in S.C. No. 80 of 1933, the decree in which was passed on 16th March, 1933. In execution of that decree the properties involved in this appeal were attached on 21st June, 1937 and were brought to sale on 4th January, 1944. The plaintiff decree-holder purchased the property himself and took delivery of the property on 3rd March, 1944. The properties originally belonged to the second defendant, judgment-debtor.2. The first defendant, Co-operative Society, obtained an award to recover a debt due from the second defendant and his wife. The award was dated 16th June, 1938. That had the force of a decree and in execution of that decree (award) the properties were brought to sale on 12th May, 1941; the first defendant society itself purchased the property. A sale certificate, however, appears to have been applied for only subsequent to the sale in execution of the decree in S.C. No. 80 of 1933. It was issued to the first defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Ramaswami Ayyar and ors. Vs. the Srirangam Municipal Council, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ508
Rajagopalan, J.1. The plaintiff owned lands within the limits of Srirangam Municipality, which lands, it is now common ground, were lands exclusively used for purposes of agriculture and which lands were liable to pay the property tax levied by the Municipality. The levy of such a tax is regulated by Section 81 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920. Section 81(2) provides:Save as otherwise provided in this Act, these taxes shall be levied at such percentages of the annual value of lands or buildings or both as may be fixed by the municipal Council, subject to the provisions of Section 78. Section 81(3) runs:The Municipal Council may, in the case of lands which are not used for agricultural purposes ...levy these taxes at such per centages of the capital value of such lands.... Section 81(4)(a) runs:The Municipal Council may, in the case of lands used exclusively for agricultural purposes levy these taxes at such proportions as it may fix of the annual value of such lands as calculat...
Tag this Judgment!Sri T.D. Ramayya Pantulu, Industrial Tribunal for Engineering Firms an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ231
Horwill, J.1. On the 5th March, 1948, by G. O. Mis. No. 1115, the Government issued a notification which runs,Whereas industrial disputes have arisen between the workers and managements of certain Engineering firms and Type foundries in the Province of Madras and whereas industrial disputes are apprehended in the rest of the Engineering firms and Type foundries in respect of certain matters; .... in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(1) and (2) read with Section 10(1)(c) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .... His Excellency, the Governor of Madras hereby constitutes an industrial Tribunal consisting of one person, namely, Sri T. D. Ramayya Pantulu....and directs that the said industrial disputes be referred to that Tribunal for adjudication.It is seen that in this notification there is no reference to any specific disputes between any group of workers and managements; nor is there any specification of the firms in which disputes between the management and workers exis...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Merchant Vs. the Bank of Mysore Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ417
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant against an order of the City Civil Judge passed by him in execution of the order of the Rent Controller, dated 15th May, 1948, under Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946. The order of the Rent Controller was passed under Section 7 on the ground that the tenant failed to pay the rent due to the landlord. To enforce the order, an execution petition was filed in the City Civil Court under Section 9 of the Act and under that section the order is executable as if it were a decree passed by that Court. The tenant objected to the execution of the order on the ground that it was passed by the Rent Controller without jurisdiction, as the tenancy was not determined by a notice to quit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It is in evidence that the landlord who purchased the property on 26th September, 1946, gave a notice determining the tenancy on 30th September, 1946, and requiring the ten...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ramayya Vs. the District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ422
Satyanarayana, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He was the Headmaster of the Board Higher Elementary School, Kamakarai, run and managed by the respondent, the District Board of Coimbatore. On certain charges framed against him and proved, the District Board by its order dated 19th November, 1941, reduced the salary of the plaintiff permanently from Rs. 30 to Rs. 25. Against this order of the District Board he preferred an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction and along with his appeal petition he enclosed a Photostat copy of a letter addressed by one Mayana Gowda to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, one Mr. Sundara Rao and dated 21st April, 1941, to establish that there was a conspiracy between one of his subordinates, Mari Gowda, whose relation was Mayana Gowda, and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mr. Sundara Rao. The Director of Public Instruction modified the order of the District Board debarring the plaintiff from being Headmaster at any time but reducing his pay to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venugopal Naidu Vs. the Third Judge of Small Causes Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ471
ORDER1. On 18th March, 1948, the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, passed an order for eviction against the first respondent in Case No. 2 of 1948. on his file in favour of respondents 5 to 10 in this application, the trustees of the Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam Charities. There was no order of eviction as such against the petitioner herein who was the second respondent before the Controller, but there were certain observations in the order of the Controller that he was merely a clerk under the first respondent. On 5th April, 1948, the petitioner filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 620 of 1948, to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The appeal was transferred by the Chief Judge to the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes. The petitioner thereupon took an. objection that the third Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This objection as to jurisdiction was heard as a preliminary point by the Third Judge who-held by his order dated 16th August, 1948, that the tran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »