Chennai Court July 1949 Judgments
Province of Madras, Represented by the Collection of Tanjore Vs. Sri V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad95
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises out of a suit by the Sri Vedaraniaswaraswami Devastanam at Vedaraniam for a declaration against the Province of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore as defendant 1 that a portion of the Sannadhi street in the village of Vedaraniam had been wrongly assigned by the first defendant to the second and for recovery of possession of the street property from defendant 2 after removing the structures built upon it by him pursuant to the assignment. The plaintiff claimed to be the grantee of the entire village in inam from a Tanjore King of old under a grant which has not been produced but which, as appears from the inam title deed, was confirmed by the British Government in 1863. The plaintiff accordingly urged that the reversionary title to the street which was one dedicated to the public including, the villagers was all along vested in it. 2. Defendant 2 based his title on an assignment made to him by defendant 1 after its conversion into ...
Tag this Judgment!Budaraju Venkatarathna Rao and ors. Vs. Budaraju Venkata Subbaiah and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad136
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, directing the sale of the properties that fell to the share of the appellants in a partition. The material facts may be briefly stated.2. One Buddaraju Venkata Subbayya and his sons instituted O. S. No. 106 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla, against defendant 1 and his sons for partition and possession of their half share in the family properties and also for an amount and recovery of the amounts pertaining to their share. Deferdant 1 to that suit is Budaraju Hanumantha Rao, defendant 2 is his son, Ramakoteswararao and the other defendants are the other sons of Hanumantha Rao. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Under the decree, a sum of Rs. 4635 7-9 was directed to be paid by defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also obtained a charge on the shares of defendants 1 and 2. The appellants are the sons of defendant 2, Ramakoteswararao. They were born subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Budaraju Venkatarathna Rao (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Budaraju Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ539
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, directing the sale of the properties that fell to the share of the appellants in a partition. The material facts may be briefly stated:2. One Budaraju Venkata Subbayya and his sons instituted O.S. No. 106 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla, against the first defendant and his sons for partition and possession of their half share in the family properties and also for an account and recovery of the amounts pertaining to their share. The first defendant to that suit is Budaraju Hanumantha Rao, the second defendant is his son, Ramakoteswara Rao and the other defendants are the other sons of Hanumantha Rao. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Under the decree a sum of Rs. 4,635-7-9 was directed to be paid by the first and second defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also obtained a charge on the shares of the first and the second defendants. The appellants are the sons of...
Tag this Judgment!The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tanjore Vs. Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ454
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam at Vedaranyam for a declaration against the Province of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore as the first defendant that a portion of the Sannadhi Street in the village of Vedaranyam had been wrongly assigned by the first defendant to the second and for recovery of possession of the street property from the second defendant after removing the structures built upon it by him pursuant to the assignment. The plaintiff claimed to be the grantee of the entire village in inam from a Tanjore King of old under a grant which has not been produced but which, as appears from the inam title deed, was confirmed by the British Government in 1863. The plaintiff accordingly urged that the reversionary title to the street which was one dedicated to the public including the villagers was all along vested in it.2. The second defendant based his title on an assignment made to him by the first def...
Tag this Judgment!K. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. C. Ethirajavathi Thayaramma by Power-of-attorn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad25
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application for the issue of a writ of certiorari arises out of a petition filed by respondent 1 before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of three persons, of whom the petitioner before us is one. Respondent 1 is the owner of house No. 210, Govindappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras. It is common ground that this house was let by respondent 1 to a firm called 'Devarajulu Naidu & Co.,' which consisted of these three persons as partners. This partnership firm was dissolved sometime in 1943 and thereafter no fresh business was done, but the affairs of the partnership were wound up. By 14th November 1946 the winding up was completed and accounts were finally settled. Meanwhile on 15th March 1944 respondent 1 purported to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit and followed up the notice with a suit for eviction in the Court of Small Causes (S. No. 252 of 1944). That suit was dismissed on 16th August 1944 and respondent l was directed to obtain relief fro...
Tag this Judgment!K. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. C. Ethirajavalli Thayaramma, by Power-of-attor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ423
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application for the issue of a writ of certiorari arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of three persons,of when the petitioner before us is one. The first respondent is the owner of house No. 210, Govindappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras. It is common ground that this house was let by the first respondent to a firm called ' Devarajulu Naidu & Co.' which consisted of these three persons as partners. This partnership firm was dissolved sometime in 1943 and thereafter no fresh business was done, but the affairs of the partnership were wound up. By 14th November, 1946, the winding up was completed and accounts were finally settled. Meanwhile on 15th March, 1944, the first respondent purported to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit and followed up the notice with a suit for eviction in the Court of Small Causes (Suit No. 252 of 1944). That suit was dismissed on 16th August, 1944 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kotrike Venkata Ramiah Chetty Vs. Chinna Pulliah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad41
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money on foot of failure of consideration for a transfer in favour of the father of the plaintiffs of a certain mortgage right. The defendant against whom the Courts below have decreed the suit is the transferor of the mortgage right.2. The facts relevant to the determination, of the two questions of law which have been, argued before me lie in a short and narrow compass. One Karnam Appiah effected a simple mortgage of certain properties in favour of one Ranga Reddi in 1929, having become the owner thereof by a sale-deed from the original owner Sitaveerayya. In 1934 Ranga Reddi transferred the mortgage right to the defendant who in his turn transferred it later to the plaintiff's father, one Baliah. After Baliah's death the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the original mortgagor, Appiah, and in execution purchased the hypotheca themselves. The sale was duly confirmed and full satisfaction of the decree record...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Madthi Vs. Rama Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad39
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal questions the correctness of the decisions of the lower Courts on the ground that he is entitled to recover possession of the properties from the defendants' family because there have been a number of chalgeni chits executed by defendants 1 and 2 who are the ejaman and the senior Anandravan in the family and as such the defendants' family had admitted that they were in possession of the property under the plaintiff's family. Whatever might be the original title which the plaintiff's family had, we find that ever since 1809 the property was not in its possession. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the chalgeni chits executed by defendants 1 and 2 were collusive, nominal and champertous transactions and did not intend to create any leasehold right so far as the property is concerned. In more than one place the learned Judge finds that the documents on which the plaintiff relied as showing the admission...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. K.G. Narayanaswami Naidu Alias La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad40
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1 and the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant 1's deceased brother. The plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that a certain house belonged to their father and that a room in that house had with his permission been occupied by the defendants. Quarrels having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants, this suit was filed for the recovery of possession of that room and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of other portions of the house. The defendants claimed that they had an equal share in the house. After perusing the written statements the plaintiffs thought it desirable that a fresh suit should be instituted in which wider questions could be raised; and so made an application to the Court under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P. C. to withdraw the suit, praying for liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That application was allowed.2. Order 23, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pentakota Naryudu and ors. Vs. Yellapu Venkata Ramanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad158
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1 This civil revision petition has been filed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in A. S. No. 145 of 1944 affirming the decree of the District Munsif in a suit for rent for 1939-1940 and 1940-1941 in respect of certain lands situated in the zamindari village of Madgole. The amount of the claim was less than Rs. 500/- and hence the case comes to this Court by way of a civil revision petition. The contention of the defendants, here petitioners, is that the lands in respect of which rent is claimed are ryoti lands, that they are tenants with a permanent right of occupancy and that the suit for rent was cognizable only by a revenue Court. The respondents' case, accepted by the Courts below, is that the lands are his private lands and the suit for rent was, therefore, rightly filed in the civil Court. It is stated for the petitioners that this finding is erroneous and that the lower appellate Court has misdirected itself in law in arriving at t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »