Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
Sadanala Narayana Rao and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver, Rajahmundry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ591
Mack, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, should, as the following facts will show, have been more properly filed as an appeal under Section 75(2) of the Insolvency Act. I do not, however, propose to attach any importance to this technicality in disposing of it on its merits.2. The short facts are these,. The petitioners are minors by their mother as guardian who took a conveyance of about 11 acres of land from-an insolvent in 1940 prior, of course, to his adjudication. It is common ground that the Official Receiver got this alienation set aside under Section 53 of the Insolvency Act. The petitioners filed an appeal in the District Court, East Godavari, the first Court of insolvency being the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. In the District Court, the Official Receiver entered into a compromise with the petitioners by which they undertook to deposit Rs. 1,000 in Court in one month to ' meet the claims of the creditors and the necessary expenses in...
Tag this Judgment!P. A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR353(Mad)
The Order of the Court was made byRAJAMANNAR, C.J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.Under Section 3 of the Act I of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, the first day of February, 1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from the any judgment to which the said Act applies. A judgment 'to which this Act applies' is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as 'any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act had not been passed.' Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases form the application...
Tag this Judgment!Gannamani Ramanna as Representing the General Body of Creditors Vs. Do ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ128
1. The relevant facts are these. In O.S. No. 121 of 1936, on the file of the District Munsif, Tanuku, the plaintiff, a creditor, obtained attachment before judgment of certain properties alleged to belong to the defendant. One Donga Suramma then intervened with a petition claiming that the properties belonged to her and asked for cancellation of the order of attachment. Her request was refused. Thereupon, she filed a regular suit, O.S. No. 389 of 1937, to establish her title to the properties and to this suit, both the attaching creditor and the defendant were made parties. The defendant in O.S. No. 121 of 1936 became insolvent and subsequently died. Thereupon an application was made to add the Official Receiver as a party. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the following recital occurs:Therefore, the Official Receiver, West Godavari, had to be included in his representative capacity as a third defendant in this suit in the place of the second defendant and the furth...
Tag this Judgment!Gannamani Ramanna as Representing the General Body of Creditors in I.P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad184
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The relevant facts are these: In O. S. No. 121 of 1936, on the file of the District Munsif, Tanuku, the plaintiff, a creditor, obtained attachment before judgment of certain properties alleged to belong to the defendant. One Donga Suramma then intervened with a petition claiming that the properties belonged to her and asked for cancellation of the order of attachment. Her request was refused. Thereupon, she filed a regular suit, O. S. no. 389 of 1937, to establish her title to the properties and to this suit, both the attaching creditor and the defendant were made parties. The defendant in O. S. No. 121 of 1936 became insolvent and subsequently died. Thereupon an application was made to add the Official Receiver as a party. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the following recital occurs:'Therefore, the Official Receiver, West Godavari, bad to be included in his representative capacity as defendant 3 in this suit in the place of defendant 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver, West Tanjore and anr. Vs. Sakkuwar Bai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad197
Panchapakesa Ayytar, J.1. The only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts went wrong in holding that a landholder who had obtained a decree against a tenant, under the Madras Estates Land Act, but has afterwards ceased to be his landholder, and the relationship between the landholder and tenant has ceased to exist, cannot execute the decree in a revenue Court and realise his arrears in a revenue sale and should execute it in a civil Court. The lower Courts relied on the rulings in Sundaram Aiyar v. Kulathu Aiyar, 39 Mad 1018 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 540 and Suramma v. Suryanarayana Jagapathiraju, 42 Mad. 114 : A. I. R. 1919 Mad. 733. In Sundaram Aiyar v. Kulathu Aiyar, 39 Mad. 1018 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 540, it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act do not empower a person, who was a lessee of an estate, to take proceedings after the expiry of his lease to sell the tenant's holding for arrears of rent due for ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver and anr. Vs. Sakkuwar Bai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ425
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts went wrong in holding that a landholder who had obtained a decree against a tenant, under the Madras Estates Land Act, but has afterwards ceased to be his landholder, and the relationship between the landholder and tenant has ceased to exist, cannot execute the decree in a Revenue Court and realise his arrears in a revenue sale and should execute it in a Civil Court. The lower Courts relied on the rulings in Sundaram Ayyar v. Kulathu Ayyar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 505 : I.L.R. 39 Mad 1018 and Suramma v. Suriyanarayana Fagapathiraju (1918) 33 M.L.J. 443 : I.L.R. 42 Mad 114. In Sundaram Ayyar v. Kulathu Ayyar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 505 : I.L.R. 39 Mad 1018, it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act do not empower a person who was a lessee of an estate, to take proceedings after the expiry of his lease to sell the tenant's holding for arrears of ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppayee Achi Alias Visalakshi Achi Vs. Pothapular Pillai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Mad834; (1949)1MLJ660
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts in this appeal are very peculiar. One Meyyappa Chettiar was adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 4 of 1936 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga. Among his properties were two items, subject to a mortgage, dated 31st March, 1925, in favour of the first respondent Pothapular Pillai, for Rs. 125. Several attempts by the Official Receiver to sell these two items for a reasonable price subject to the mortgage met with failure. So, he wrote to the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, asking for permission to sell the properties free of all encum- brances, as the first respondent, the mortgagee, was willing to bid for Rs. 200 and buy the properties and write off the rest of the amount due to him under the mortgage. It is, of course, well known that Official Receivers move the Insolvency Courts often for a sale of mortgaged properties free of encumbrance, one of the ideas in doing so being to get an extra commission. But, curiously enough, in this case, there was a comedy o...
Tag this Judgment!Kalachitti Bhimavva Vs. Gurikara Nagappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ627
Govinda Menon, J.1. In a small cause suit, S.C. No. 219 of 1939 on the file of the District. Munsif's Court, Hospet, the present appellant obtained a decree for a sum of money against one Obavva, the third defendant in this suit and another Bhimappa, the second defendant in this suit. On his attaching survey No. 601 in Kadligi village as belonging to Obavva, certain persons claimed those properties. One Muddabappa a cousin of Obavva claimed by E.A. No. 842 of 1941 his right to possession of a part of the property and that claim was allowed by the District Munsiff. No further proceedings have been taken to get that order set aside under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code and it has hence become final. The three uncles of Obavva, being her father's step-brothers filed a claim petition stating that they are entitled to the rest of the property. This claim was enquired into by the District Munsiff' who rejected it and thereupon the claimants as plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 575 of 1942 ou...
Tag this Judgment!Kandi Parambath Elaya Nayan Veetil Thalakurussi Atchuthan Nair Vs. Vel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ129
Rajagopalan, J.1. On 11th August 1936, there was a preliminary decree to enforce the mortgage deed, dated 15th March, 1933, executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in second appeal. There was a final decree on 17th March, 1937, for the sale of the hypotheca. The defendant subsequently applied to have the decree debt scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938). That application was allowed by the trial Court on 27th December, 1938 and the decree debt was scaled down to Rs. 427-3-0. Against that order the decree-holder filed A.S. No. 190 of 1939 to the District Judge who held that the decree debt ought to be scaled down to Rs. 751-9-8. This was on 22nd March, 1938. Against the decree of the appellate Court in A.S. No. 190 of 1939 the defendant filed a second appeal. On 13th July, 1942, the High Court set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 190 of 1939 on the ground that the appellate Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Vemasani Narasamma Vs. Vemasani Rama Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ251
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in the District Court of Nellore in O.P. No. 137 of 1946, which was a petition filed finder Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, praying the Court to make an inquisition about the lunacy of one Vemasani China Rama Naidu and to adjudge him as a lunatic. The further prayers were that in case he is adjudged a lunatic, a manager to manage his estate may be appointed. 2. The learned District Judge after following a certain procedure about which it will be necessary to mention something hereafter, came to the conclusion that this. China Rama Naidu was a lunatic and he was adjudged as such. As a result of this finding, he appointed the mother, Vemasani Narasamma, who was the first respondent in the Court below and the appellant in this appeal, as the personal guardian of the lunatic and the Government Pleader of Nellore as the manager of the properties of the said lunatic.3. Mr. T. Venkatadri appearing for the appellant, who, as stated...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »