Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
Sankara Pursa Vs. Govinda Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ542
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against an order of the District judge of South Kanara setting aside an execution sale under Section 47, Civil: Procedure Code, on the application of the judgment-debtors.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of the appeal are these. On with May, 1931, the property forming the subject-matter of this appeal was mortgaged by its owners to one Suppi Hengsu who died leaving 9 children governed by the Aliyasanthana law. Under a family karar (Ex. D-1), dated 23rd September, 1931, the mortgage debt along with some other property was kept apart for the seven sons of Suppi Hengsu and two of them namely, Aitha Purusha and Sankara Purusha were appointed adaltedars (managers) on behalf of all the seven sons with power to realise the mortgage debt. These two individuals filed a suit on the mortgage, O.S. No. 84 of 1934, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara and obtained a final decree for sale on 7th S...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Koundan Vs. Sanni Krishnama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad790
ORDERMack, J.1. Petnr. who was not a party to the decree filed an appln. under Order 21 Rule 89, C. P. C. to set aside a Ct. sale in execution. The Dist. Munsif & the Dist. J. in appeal concurred in finding that the petnr. had no 'locus standi' to file such an appln, as he was neither the judgment-debtor nor a person deriving title from him nor any person holding an interest in the property & dismissed his appln.2. The facts are briefly these. The judgment debtor is stated without contradiction by the other side to be an old man of about 80. The Ct sale to execution of the decree against him was held on 14-10-1947 at which a house belonging to him to Dharapuram was sold for Rs. 1010. On 27-10-1947 the judment-debtor executed a usufructuary mtge. of some other property, the mtge. specifically reciting as part of the consideration a sum of Rs. 1500 which the mtgee. had to deposit in the executing Ct. What is most important is a specific direction in this mtge. deed to the petnr. to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Chilukuri Tripura Sundaramma Vs. Chilukuri Venkateswarlu Alias Ramacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ586
Govinda Menon, J.1. These appeals arise out of the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali wherein the question for consideration is whether the forfeiture clauses contained in the two lease deeds Exs. P-4 and P-5 executed by the respondents in each of these appeals to the appellant should be given effect to or not. Exs. P-4 and P-5 are both registered permanent leases relating to properties leased out to the respective respondents in each of the second appeals and in each of them the condition regarding the payment of rent is that the lessees were to remain in occupation of the property as permanent lessees on payment of a rent of ten bags of paddy per acre payable at the end of January each year. In default of payment of rent, the lessor is entitled to recover the same with a charge over the crop at an extra rate of four annas per bag over the prevailing rates. There was also a further clause that a period of grace from the end of January to the 16th of March every year is allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Varry Mutyalamma Alias Murtyalu and ors. Vs. Dasary Narayanaswamy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ589
Mack, J.1. Petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed against them by the plaintiffs. They seek to revise an order by the. District Munsif allowing a belated amendment of the plaint after the issues were framed. They are persons in occupation of huts on an extent of land in Rajahmundry measuring about 800 sq. yards Plaintiffs sued to evict them praying for a declaration of the right of the first and second plaintiffs to the suit site, for evicting defendants thereon and delivery of possession. They valued the plaint under Section 7(v) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 800 being the value of 800 square yards. Defendants in their written statement contested the position that they were in the position of licensees and also the financial jurisdiction of the District Munsif to try the suit on the ground that the value of the site and the huts standing thereon was in excess of Rs. 3000 After issues, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint in a manner obviously designed to clothe the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chandappa Indra Vs. M. Jagathpala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ540
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff who sued as a member of a charitable Jain Sangham, an institution which sought to provide for the education of Jains, the maintenance of a school and so on. He sought permission under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, to sue in a representative capacity the Secretary of the Sangham and 9 committee members for certain reliefs, inter alia for a direction to call a general body meeting, elect new office-bearers, render account, etc. After the Court had given publicity as required by Order 1, Rule 8, 12 members of this Sangham filed affidavits strenuously opposing the petitioner's right to represent them or the majority of the members of the Sangham. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the strength of Harikisandas Shivlal v. Chhaganlal Narsidas I.L.R. (1915) 40 Bom. 158 held that in view of these affidavits, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to represent or sue on behalf of the members of the Sangham. This Bench decision of the Bombay High Court is n...
Tag this Judgment!C. Tadulinga Mudaliar Vs. M.R. Sakuntala Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ616
Govinda Menon, J.1. Election Petition No. 5 of 1948 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, was filed by Mrs. Sakuntala Bai, the first respondent to this petition against three persons two of whom had been declared as the successful candidates in the election to the Corporation of Madras from the 40th Division (Chepauk) held on 30th September, 1948. The third respondent to her petition is the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. In her petition for setting aside the election, the first respondent herein alleged several instances of irregularities in the conduct of the election as well as false personations and misrepresentations practised by the candidates. It was alleged that there was false personation of voters on a large scale and quite a large number of false votes were recorded in favour of the successful candidates. It was further alleged that many dead persons were ' resuscitated ' and voters who had left the division long before were impersonated and their votes reco...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania and Company Vs. Penukonda Radhakrishnamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ518
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The decision of this Court in O.S.A. No. 49 of 1947, no doubt reversed the decision of the learned Judge on the Original Side and therefore our decree is not an affirming decree. It is also clear that the appeal does involve a substantial question of law. But the objection raised to the grant of leave to appeal to the Federal Court is that the condition in section no, first paragraph, viz., that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards is not satisfied. Under the award the sum payable was Rs. 9,682-8-0 with interest thereon at six per cent per annum from the date of the award. Calculating interest till 17th July, 1946, the date of the filing of the Original Petition No. 153 of 1946 to pass a decree in terms of the award, the amount comes only to Rs. 9,896-3-0, which is less than the required amount. To get over this difficulty Mr. Radhakrishnayya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, co...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppayee Ammal and ors. Vs. Periasami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ117
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Objection was taken to the correctness of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on his plaint. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A(1) of Schedule II to the Court-Fees Act for the relief of declaration of title valuing the properties at Rs. 5,200 and an ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 50-10-0 being half, of ten times the lust for the relief of injunction. He therefore treated the relief of injunction as separate and distinct from the relief of declaration. It is said that the suit must have been valued as a suit falling under Section 7(iv)(c) read with the Madras proviso, that is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed,where the relief sought is with reference to immoveable property in which case valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Sekuru Murahari Rao Vs. Kandula Bapayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ514
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a plaintiff who filed a suit on a promissory note under the summary provisions of Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, A summons was issued requiring the appearance of the defendant within ten days o service. On the 11th day after service the defendant appeared and moved the Court under Order 37, Rule 3, for leave to defend on the ground that the promissory note sued on was a forgery. The learned District Munsiff gave him, leave to appear and defend the suit unconditionally overruling a technical contention that there was no provision under the Limitation Act to condone any delay in the ten days given in the summons No. 4 in App. B prescribed under Order 37, Rule 2.2. The learned District Munsiff found some difficulty in meeting a technical argument that the Limitation Act made no specific provision for condoning such a delay. His reasoning to get over the technical argument advanced before him is open to a little criticism. It is true that there i...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Saheb Vs. Abdul Salam Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ522
Mack, J.1.Petitioner is the first defendant in a Mohamedan family partition suit. In the plaint filed by two members of the family there were specific prayers for past and future mesne profits on the items of property to be decreed to them and in respect of past mesne profits specific court-fee was admittedly paid. At the preliminary decree no provision was made for either past or future mesne profits. Subsequently on the application of the second plaintiff the learned Judge directed an ascertainment of mesne profits both past and future to be determined by the Commissioner working out the final decree.2. It is contended that this order is without jurisdiction and is not in accordance with Ghulusum Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 296, a Bench decision of Ayling and Krishnan, JJ. The facts as set out there do not however show that future mesne profits were asked for in the written statement of the tenth defendant who it was that asked, subsequent to the preliminary decree, f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›