Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
theruvath Vittil Muhammadunny Vs. Melepurakkal Unniri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ452
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal originally came on before Horwill, J., who considered it desirable that it should be heard by a Division Bench in view of the conflict between decisions of this Court.2. The appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam remanding a suit to the District Munsiff of Chowghat for disposal on the merits. The suit was filed by the first respondent for eviction of the appellant (first defendant) from a building that had been leased to him by the first respondent's predecessor in 1936. There were also prayers for arrears of rent and for recovery of damages in respect of an annexe to the building constructed by the first respondent. The appellant deposited into Court the entire arrears of rent and interest claimed in the suit, and therefore that part of the plaintiff's claim was satisfied. Following the decision in Mahmood v. Kerala Corporation Ltd. : AIR1945Mad181 the District Munsiff held that the suit, so far as it related to eviction, w...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Appasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ523
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff, who originally filed the second appeal and died during its pendency, are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was filed for a declaration that a decree obtained by the defendant against one Alamelu Ammal, widow of Kothandapani Pillai, was not binding on the estate of Kothandapani to which the plaintiff had succeeded as reversioner on the death of the widow. Kothandapani died on 12th February, 1925, leaving landed properties to which his widow Alamelu succeeded as his heir. On 25th December, 1926, she executed a promissory note (Ex. D-1) for Rs. 600 in favour of one Krishnaswami Naidu who endorsed it on 18th September, 1934, in favour of the defendant in the present suit who sued Alamelu, the maker of the note, and obtained an ex parte decree against her in O.S. No. 367 of 1934,. on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Negapatam for the amount due under the promissory note. The rele...
Tag this Judgment!Ponna Viyyanna Sarma Vs. Reddi Manikyam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ468
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry passed in I.A. No. 756 of 1946 in O.P. No. 34 of 1928 on his file.2. A sum of Rs. 1739-13-3 has been deposited in Court, as compensation for acquisition of land which belonged to the husband of Reddi Manikyam, the first respondent to this petition, and which was in her possession. But since the estate held by her was only a widow's estate, the amount could not be paid over to her without the necessary safeguards. Thereupon, the petitioner, in this revision petition applied to the lower Court stating that he was willing to mortgage his property as security and receive the amount in Court deposit, for which interest at the rate of Re. 0-11-0 per cent, per month would be paid to the widow every year from the 20th March, 1930 onwards. He has been paying the amount regularly until sometime before the filing of the Interlocutory Application which has given rise to this Civil Revision Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Akkal Naicker Vs. Kumarasami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ432
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Sattur in E.A. No. 42 of 1945 in S.C. No. 311 of 1938. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and, if it is so, the petition is barred by limitation.2. Shortly stated, the facts are these. The learned District Munsiff, sitting as a Small Cause Judge passed the decree against the respondent for a sum of money on 19th January, 1939, in favour of the petitioner who was decree-holder plaintiff. The petitioner filed successive execution petitions on the Original Side of the same Court. The first of them on 1st September, 1941, being E.P. No. 341 of 1941. This was dismissed for default of prosecution on 25th September, 1941. Thereupon another application E.P. No. 292 of 1942, was filed in the same Original Side of the District Munsiff's Court on 15th July, 1942. This application again...
Tag this Judgment!Turlapaty Rajeswara Rao and ors. Vs. Kamarajugadda Rangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ480
1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing the suit O.S. No. 48 of 1944, filed by the appellants for a declaration of title and for possession of the suit properties. The relationship of the parties can be seen from the following pedigree: Basavayya | _________________________________________ | | Sangayya Rajalingam | |China Veerabadra Rao ____________________________ | | |________________________ Pedda Veerabadra Rangarama| | Rao (Testator) |Rajeswara Somasundara D. 1918=Syamalamba ___________________Rao Rao D. 17-1-1944 | |(1st (and Basaveswara MrutyunjayaPlaintiff) Plaintiff) Rao (D. 1927-218) D. 1919= = Lakshmi- Rangamma narasamma (1st (2nd Defendant) Defendant) | Rangan- ayakamma (3rd Defendant)2. Pedda Veerabadra Rao died on 9th March, 1918. Before his death, on 5th December, 1917, he executed a will, Ex. P-1, disposing of his properties in the manner mentioned in the document. After his death Syamalamba was in possession a...
Tag this Judgment!Mantharavadi Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Merugu Venkatadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ520
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. C.M.A. No. 648 of 1946 is a transferred appeal from the Court of the District Judge of Kistna. It was C M.A. No. 66 of 1945 there. It was an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 46 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Masulipatam, against an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the Sub-Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 1,502-9-0 claimed as damages for use and occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs in the village of Cherichintala, Kistna district, by the defendants for faslis 1350-52. CM.A. No. 649 of 1946 is also a transferred appeal, which was C M.A. No. 67 of 1947 in the District Court, Kistna. That also was an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, in O.S. No. 53 of 1943, Sub-Court, Masulipatam, against an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 3,355-14-0 claimed as damages for us...
Tag this Judgment!Kanamathareddi Seethamma Vs. Kanamathareddi Kotareddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ593
Horwill, J.1. On 19th August, 1935, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 527 of 1930 attached the six items of property with which we are now concerned and a few other items in E.P. No. 383 of 1935. When the property was posted for sale on 13th July, 1936, the mother of the judgment-debtor intervened end claimed in her application, E.A. No. 1250 of 1936 (Ex. P-3), that she had been given a maintenance charge over these six items in a suit brought by her for that purpose (O.S. No. 349 of 1932) on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Ellore). Four days before E. A. No. 1250 of 1936 was filed, the decree-holder and another filed a suit representing the general body of creditors for a declaration that the charge decree obtained by the mother of the judgment-debtor was collusive and not binding on the creditors and that the property already purchased in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 527 of 1930, as well as the items under attachment, were not therefore liable for her maintenance. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Desayi Chelapathi Reddi Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ438
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant here as well as in the lower appellate Court, for a declaration that the Provincial Government had no right to call upon him either to effect any repairs to two tanks called Mussalareddipalle Kunta and Bassampalle Kunta, situate in his shrotriem village of Mussalareddipalle or to pay the costs of the repairs incurred by the Government. The suit was the sequel to action taken by the District Collector of Guddappah under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Madras Estates Land Act and was instituted under Sub-section (3) on both the grounds referred to therein, namely, that the plaintiff was under no obligation to repair the tanks, and that the proportion of the charge which he was liable to pay under Sub-section (1) had been wrongly calculated. In support of the first ground it was alleged in the plaint that there were desabandam inam grants for the repair and maintenance of the tanks c...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnaraya Kodgi Vs. A. Sarvothama Kodgi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ459
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is one of construction of a deed of gift, Ex. P-2, executed on 20th March, 1918, by the first defendant, appellant before me, in favour of the second defendant, the Indian section of the Theosophical Society, Benares, represented by its General Secretary at the time, for the use and benefit of the local lodge at Coondapur. On 6th October, 1942, finding the suit property no longer required for the use and benefit of the local lodge which apparently had by that time ceased to exist and basing itself on the clause of reverter contained in Ex. P-2 the second defendant by its General Secretary at the time executed a deed of sale of the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff, the first respondent before me, sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Coondapur for recovery of possession of the entire subject-matter of the gift deed but succeeded in obtaining a decree for only a half which was later conf...
Tag this Judgment!Desayi Chelapathi Reddi Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad650
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant here as well as in the lower appellate Court, for a declaration that the Provincial Government had no right to call upon him either to effect any repairs to two tasks called Mussalareddipalle Kunta and Bassampalle Kunta, situate in his shrotriem village of Mussalareddipalle or to pay the costs of the repairs incurred by the Government. The suit was the sequal to action taken by the District Collector of Cuddappah under Sub-section (1) of Section 142, Madras Estates Land Act and was instituted under Sub-section (3) on both the grounds referred to therein, namely, that the plaintiff was under no obligation to repair the tanks, and that the proportion of the charge which he was liable to pay under Sub-section (1) had been wrongly calculated. In support of the first ground, it was alleged in the plaint that there were dasabandham inam grants for the repair and maintenance of the tanks conf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »