Chennai Court October 1949 Judgments
Godavari Lakshminarasamma Vs. Godavari Rama Brahman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad680
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 29 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry is the appellant. She is the widow of one Mruthinjaya Rao. She sued for partition and separate possession of her half share in certain immovable properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Defendant 1 is the brother of her deceased husband. Defendants 2 to 4 are the undivided sons of defendant 1. Defendants 5 and 6 were made parties because they were in possession of portions of properties having obtained them in exchange for properties belonging to them. The plaintiff's case shortly was that the properties in Schedule A originally belonged to one Reddi Rama Brahmam and on his death devolved successively on his widow Subbamma and daughter Lakahminarasamma and thereafter on the two sons of the daughter, namely, the deceased husband of the plaintiff and defendant 1 and that the two brothers became entitled to and enjoyed the properties as tenants in common and on the death of her husband hi...
Tag this Judgment!Vadlamudi Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Ravipati Ramamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad379
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This application raises a question of some importance as regards the light of the respondent in an appeal to prefer objections to the decree of the lower Court without preferring a separate appeal. The application has been made in A. S. No. 153 of 1947 on the file of this Court which was an appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 54 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur against a preliminary decree for partition passed in favour of the plaintiffs who are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. Besides the plaintiffs, only defendant 4 has been made a respondent in the appeal. In the Court below, there were 6 defendants and the plaintiffs are the sons of one Venkatasubbayya and defendant 1 is his brother. Defendants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of defendant 1. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sisters of defendant 1. Defendant 6 is his father-in-law. Defendants 5 and 6 were made parties to the suit, because it was alleged by the plaintiffs that they wer...
Tag this Judgment!Chunduru Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Sree Seethanagara Veeranjaneya CIn an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad386
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. C. R. P. Nos. 797 and 798 of 1947: These revision petitions are against the orders in C. M. A. Nos. 115 and 120 of 1946 respectively on the file of the District Judge of Guntur. These relate to the insolvency of one Immadisetti Bikshapathi. A creditor of his, filed I. P. No. 15 of 1946 on 6th September 1946 for his adjudication. An ex parte order for adjudication was made. The petitioners who claim to be transferees of the properties of the insolvent filed applications to be added as parties to the said I. P. No. 15 of 1946 as they contended that they are entitled to notice of the adjudication petition before final orders were passed. The applications filed by the petitioners for adding them as parties and hearing them were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur before whom the said I. P. No. 15 of 1946 was filed and an ex parte order of adjudication was made adjudicating the debtor an insolvent on 6th November 1946. As against the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Manda Subbamma and anr. Vs. Karri Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad749
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. C. R. P. No. 1594 of 1947, arises out of the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in S. C. S. No. 47 of 1947 and C. R. P. 1595 of 1947 arises out of the decision of the same learned Judge in S. C. S. No. 48 of 1947. S. C. S. No. 47 of 1947 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 651-4-0 due under two promissory notes, one dated 27-7-1940 for Rs. 100 and the other dated 4-6-1942 for Rs. 400. S. C. S. No. 48 of 1947 was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 707-12-0, on three promissory notes. Of these three promissory notes, only one is in question, viz. that executed on 27-4-1943 for a sum of Rs. 334.2. Both these suits were filed on 31-1-1947, that is to say, long after the date on which the promissory notes had become time-barred prima facie. In order to save time the plaintiff, who is the same in both the suits, relied upon certain agreements of even date entered into by the defendants who are identical in both the suits, which he cla...
Tag this Judgment!Senapathi Mudaliar Vs. Deivanai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad357
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. There is no doubt whatever that the order awarding separate maintenance to the respondent, the petitioner's first wife was correct and proper. The petitioner has married again and his offer to take the respondent back and treat her well cannot be taken to be sincere. Even it he takes her back, he will only make her an unpaid cook and maid for all work of himself and his second wife, an intolerable position and one to which no Court should drive a married woman. 2. The next question is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. After carefully considering all the circumstances, I reduce it to Rs. 12-8-0 a month as the petitioner has to maintain another wife, married before the Anti-Polygamy Act and provide for children by her, out of his income of Rs. 40 a month, whereas children of his by the respondent are now highlyimprobable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevayya Vs. Bhagirathi Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad333
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case a mortgagee who paid up a prior charge-decree on the hypotheca in order to avert an imminent sale in execution of the decree sought to recover the amount paid, basing himself in his plaint solely on the right of subrogation recognised by the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Section 92, Transfer of Property Act. The contesting defendants were certain alienees of the hypotheca who resisted the right so claimed. The right of subrogation has been held against by both the Courts below on the ground that it could only be exercised and was not within the period of limitation applicable to the original charge irrespective of the date of discharge. The Courts below have however granted relief to the plaintiff applying Section 72, Transfer of Property Act. The lower appellate Court has also relied on the equitable lien or charge found by it to exist in favour of the plaintiff on the authority of the ruling of the Calcutta high Court in Ambica Charan v. Ramgati, A. I. R. 1...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Pachiappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad364
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are petitions filed by three persons, Pachiappan, Velayudham and Gajapathi, accused of offences under Section 124A, Penal Code,' in C. C. Nos. 2191, 2017 and 3211 of 1949 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, requesting me to interfere in revision with the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras refusing to commit these oases to the High Court sessions for trial, and reserving the cases for disposal by himself. 2. The learned counsel for all the petitioners in these cases contends that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was wrong in refusing to commit the cases for trial to the High Court sessions in view of the observations of Kuppuswami Ayyar J. in In re Ramarathnam : AIR1946Mad349 . I have looked into that ruling and do not consider that it will apply to the facts of this case. As the learned Crown Prosecutor urged, that ruling went on the particular facts of the case, there being two peculiar and distinguishing f...
Tag this Judgment!Ethilavulu Ammal and ors. Vs. Pethakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad390
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this civil miscellaneous appeal preferred against the order of remand by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. The plaintiff is the widow of one Thanipulli Naicker who died in 1933 though there is no evidence regarding the actual date of his death. Immediately after his death, the father of the plaintiff executed a deed dated 27th June 1933 (Ex. P-1) acting as guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor, in favour of defendant 1 and his brother. Under the title so acquired, defendant 1 and his brother made various alienations of the properties in favour of the several defendants in the action. The plaintiff attained majority in 1941. She filed the present suit in forma pauperis on 23rd March 1945 to recover possession of the properties left by her deceased husband and she impeached the deed executed by the father as not binding upon her. Various defences to the action were raised by the alienee-defendants and the prin...
Tag this Judgment!Golden Knitting Co. Vs. Mural Traders (India)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad293
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the District Court of Coimbatore in the Dominion of India has power to execute, after 15th August 1947, a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Karachi in the Dominion of Pakistan prior to that date and transmitted for execution after that day by that Court to the District Court of Coimbatore. The learned District Judge in the Court below held that he had the power. The learned District Judge is obviously wrong. After the appointed day the judgment of the Court at Karachi passed before then became a foreign judgment in respect of which execution could only be had if the territory in which the decree in question was passed has become, by an arrangement between the two Dominions, a reciprocating territory within the meaning of Section 44A, Civil P. C. The precise point now arising for decision has, been decided by a Bench of the High Court of Calcutta composed of Mookerjee and Chunder JJ , in a case reported in Dominion of In...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Ayyangar Vs. Thulasi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad320
Raghava Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition by the mother of the minor, aged about 13 her natural guardian, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for recovery of her custody from her paternal aunt's husband. The petitioner succeeded in the Court below.2. It is argued for the appellant that the mother does not satisfy the definition of 'guardian' in Section 4, Sub-section (2), Guardians and Wards Act and that her petition under Section 25 of the Act is not therefore maintainable. The point made is that she is not a person in truth and in fact having the care of the person of the minor because it is the paternal aunt and her husband that are actually having such care. It is also said that she is not a guardian appointed or declared as such. I do not agree. Noshirwan v. Sharoshbanu, : AIR1934Bom311 supports my view. It is there held that the word 'guardian' in the section is used in a wide sense and does not necessarily mean a guardian duly appointed or declared by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »