Chennai Court October 1949 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.
Vedakumpprath Pillai's son Muthu Vs. Kulathinkal Kuppan's son Narayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ804
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This appeal raises a question of Hindu Law of particular interest to the Ezhuva community in Malabar. This is how the question comes up. The properties which form the subject-matter of this litigation belonged to an Ezhuva woman Called Kalu. She died issueless in 1936. Chathu, her husband, then took possession of the properties and subsequently sold them to the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is the brother of Kalu and he claimed that the marriage of Kalu to Chathu had been in the asura form, that he was therefore in law the real heir of Kalu and as such entitled to the properties. On this basis he sought to recover possession of the properties from the first defendant, the vendee from Chathu. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal took the view that the marriage of Kalu had been in the asura form and decreed the suit. In second appeal Patanjali Sastri, J., held that the marriage was not an asura mar...
Janaswami Venkataseshamma Vs. Sri Prativadi Bhayankaram Ranganaryakamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad769
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 61 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. She obtained a decree on 7th December 1946. On 15th April 1947 the respondent to this application who was defendant 1 in the Court below, presented to this Court an appeal which was valued at Rs. 25,305. The proper court-fee payable thereon was Rs. 1342-7-0. The appeal was presented however with a court-fee of Rs. 10. The memorandum of appeal was returned by the office on 1st May 1947 inter alia for payment of the deficit court-fee. On 3rd January 1949 an application was made by the respondent herein to excuse the delay in payment of the deficit court-fee. The delay was of nearly two years. On 5th January 1949, a learned Judge of this Court sitting in the Admission Court excused the delay without directing notice to the other side, that is, the petitioner before us. The petitioner on coming to know of the facts after a stay of execution had been obtained by the r...
Palla Sanyasi Vs. Kayitha Guruvulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad271
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for the recovery of certain jewels or their value from defendant 1. His case was that his younger brother Pentayya married a lady by name Ramanna and that at the time of the marriage, the jewels now claimed were presented to Ramanna by the plaintiff out of his family funds. Pentayya, the younger brother of the plaintiff, died in October 1943 and his widow Ramanna married defendant 1 in or about May 1944. Ramanna died on 17th December 1944 having committed suicide. The present suit for recovery of the jewels presented by the plaintiff to Ramanna at the time of her marriage with Pentayya the plaintiff's younger brother, has been filed on the ground that according to the custom in the Golla community to which the parties belong, Ramanna was bound to have returned the jewels to the plaintiff on her remarriage with defendant 1. In other words, t...
V.K. Murugappa Mudaliar Vs. P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad314
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 44 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the appellant. The suit was for a declaration of his title to certain properties described in schedule A to the plaint and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of some of the items in schedule A described separately in schedule B.2. The suit properties according to the plaintiff originally belonged to one Megavarnam Nayanim Varu, the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the grandfather of defendant 5. One K. L. Narasimhachari obtained a decree in O. S. No. 45 of 1940 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor against the present defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 5 for the amount due to him under a promissory note executed by Megavarnam. That decree was passed on 19th June 1940. After two applications filed in 1941, E. P. No. 3 of 1942 was filed by the original decree-holder against the father of defendant 5, defend...
Adisesha Ayyar Vs. Pappammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad341
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether defendant 2, (judgment-debtor) was precluded from raising her objection to the attachment of the properties by reason of the orders made in previous execution petitions, i.e., E. P No. 1661 of 1936 and E. P. No. 1165 of 1940 on the file of the same Court. The appellant (decree-holder) obtained a decree in O.S. no. 621 of 1930 against defendant 1 'the mother of defendant 2, for Rs. 480 and for cost' and in E. P. No. 687 of 1933 applied for attachment and sale of certain properties, some properties were sold in execution of the decree and the decree-holder purchased the same. Defendant 1, who is the mother, died some time in September 1936, E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 was filed on 3rd November 1933 for the balance of the decree amount and the mode in which the assistance was sought in the execution petition was to implead defendant 2, who was her only daughter as her legal representative and for attachment and...
Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami Vs. Pulavarthi Sitaramamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad319
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff 2 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the settlement of accounts specified in Schedules A to E of the plaint and for a decree for such amount as may be found due to the plaintiffs. There was a preliminary decree in pursuance of which a Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts and submit his report. He made an interim report on 30th April 1942 recording his conclusions on some of the points in dispute and asking for directions regarding the question of interest claimed by the plaintiffs. A general direction was given by the trial Court regarding interest by an order dated 15th September 1942 and the Commissioner was asked to submit a final report. An auditor was appointed and he submitted a final report on 21st December 1942, Objections were filed by both the parties and the Courts below have dealt with those objections.2. It is clear that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to account to the plaintiffs a...
Adisesha Aiyar Vs. Papammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ748
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the second defendant (judgment-debtor) was precluded from raising her objection, to the attachment of the properties by reason of the orders made in previous execution petitions, i.e., E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 and E.P. No. 1165 of 1940 on the file of the same Court. The appellant (decree-holder) obtained a decree in O.S. No, 621 of 1930 against the first defendant the mother of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 480 and for costs and in E.P. No. 687 of 1933 applied for attachment and sale of certain properties. Some properties were sold in execution of the decree and the decree-holder purchased the same. The first defendant, who is the mother, died some time in September 1936. E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 was filed on 3rd November, 1936, for the balance of the decree amount and the mode in which the assistance was sought in the execution petition was to implead the second defendant who was her only daughter as her legal ...
Mrs. N. Lakshmi Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad410
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was heard by the Officiating Chief Justice (Rajamannar O. C. J. as he then was) and myself on 4th February 1948, and as we felt that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72: A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 775 which was followed by the learned trial Judge required reconsideration, we referred the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The order we then made is as follows :'We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 775, which has been applied to the case by the learned trial Judge in our opinion requires reconsideration.' The matter has accordingly been placed no...
Sankala Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Godavarthi Jagannathaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad369
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The defendants are the petitioners in these two revision petitions which arise in two suits instituted for possession and mesne profits, the main defence being that the suit properties, i.e., certain lands, form part of an 'estate' as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act, and therefore civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suits. The suits relate to three items of lands measuring on the whole 7 acres 33 cents in Sankarashanapuram Agraharam. The plaintiff claims to be a minor inamdar of these lands and has instituted the suits for recovery of possession and profits. The village of Sankarashanapuram is an Agraharam and it would be an 'estate,' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act by virtue of the latest amendment whereby Explanation 1 has been incorporated under Act, II [2] of 1945.2. The learned District Munsif held that the lands which are covered by the suits form part of an 'estate' under the Madras Estates Land Act and the civil Courts...
Chalavadi Narasimham and anr. Vs. Chalvadi Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad492
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The present appeal, purporting to be under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, is against the order passed by the District Judge of Nellore in an application filed by the appellants (insolvents) under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, praying that a certain composition scheme be declared to be pending, that two interlocutory applications which were disposed of be reopened, and that Chalvadi Ramayya, the respondent, be removed from the schedule of creditors and directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 386-10-8 into Court. At the end of Para. 10 of his judgment, the learned District Judge dismissed the application as clearly untenable. 2. The main question argued before me is a preliminary one; whether an appeal lies on the ground that the insolvent has merely a spes and no legal interest in the property and is not therefore a person aggrieved. Reference has been made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harirao v. Official Assignee, Madras, 49 Mad. 461 : A. I. R. 1926 Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »