Chennai Court July 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.
T.G. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. K.J. Narayanaswami Naidu Alias La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ457
Horwill, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant and the plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant'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 Procedure Code, to withdraw the suit, praying for liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That application was ...
Melarkode Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Damodaraswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad34
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioners are decree-holders in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. These petitions raise an interesting point of rateable distribution. There were five decrees against the same judgment-debtor, two obtained in the Tiruppur District Munsif's Court and three in the Sub-Court, The decree-holder in the Tiruppur District Munsif's Court in O. S. No. 494 of 1944, who is respondent 2, first got some immovable property sold and Rs. 4915 which was realised was brought into the District Munsif's Court. The other decree-holder in the District Munsif's Court got his decree in O. S. No. 65 of 1945 transferred to the Sub-Court for execution, for what reason it is neither disclosed nor material, and attached the same immovable property--it was then disclosed that it had already been sold by the District Munsif. The Sub-Court acting under Section 63, Civil P. C., sent for the amount which was received by it on 7th September 1946. Prior to the receipt of this money in the Sub-Court, the th...
Thiruvendipuram Dorairajam Nayanim Varu and ors. Vs. Vemaswami Rama Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad47
Horwill, J.1. A fairly simple question has been raised by the appellants, although it has been argued with considerable vehemence by their learned Advocate. A mortgage was executed by a mother and two sons; and mortgage decrees, preliminary and final, were passed against them. The hypotheca was brought to sale; but as it was insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, an application was put in under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C., for a personal decree against the two sons. Amongst other pleas, they stated that various payments had been made and that nothing remained due. Their objections were overruled and a personal decree was passed against the sons for the amount that the plaintiff claimed. In due course, execution was taken out; but by the time with which we are concerned both the sons had died and their legal representatives brought on record. The latter raised no objection to being brought on record as legal representatives; but when the decree was transmitted to another Court f...
Ganapathi Subramania Ayyar (Minor) and anr. Vs. Alloor Gopalaswami Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad98
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, namely, whether a debtor could get a refund of the excess amounts paid by him to the creditor subsequent to 1st October 1937. The facts are fully and accurately stated in the judgment of the lower Court and it is not necessary to restate them except to the extent necessary for appreciating the point of law raised in the appeal.2. Gopalaswami Naidu (defendant 1) executed a mortgage dated 1st October 1918 for a sum of Rs. 1900 in favour of Muthia and Subramania. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Muthiah. Plaintiffs 3 to 6 are the sons of Subramania. They instituted O. S. NO. 45 of 1934 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura to enforce the said mortgage along with another mortgage with which we are now not concerned and obtained a preliminary decree on 25th January 1936. The final decree was passed on 31st March 1937. The decree-holders brought some o...
The Melarkode Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Damodaraswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ403
Mack, J.1. The petitioners are decree-holders in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. These petitions raise an interesting point of rateable distribution. There were five decrees against the same judgment-debtor, two obtained in the Tiruppur District Munsiff's Court, and three in the Sub-Court. The decree-holder in the Tiruppur District Munsiff's Court in O.S. No. 494 of 1944, who is the second respondent, first got some immoveable property sold and Rs. 4,915 which was realised was brought into the District Munsiff's Court. The other decree-holder in the District Munsiff's Court got his decree in O.S. No. 65 of 1945, transferred to the Sub-Court for execution, for what reason it is neither disclosed nor material, and attached the same immoveable property. It was then disclosed that it had already been sold by the District Munsiff. The Sub-Court acting under Section 63, Civil Procedure Code, sent for the amount which was received by it on 7th September, 194.6. Prior to the receipt of this money i...
Malladi Seetharama Sastri Vs. the Hyderabad State Represented by the G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad30
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff, a merchant of Bezwada, who sued the Nizam State Railway of Hyderabad for the recovery of Rs. 305 being the value of some machinery he consigned: on 21st August 1944 from Bezwada to the Circar Engineering Company, Lahore. It is common ground that the goods had to be carried over three railways. Plaintiff received from the consignee a letter Ex. p-1 dated 7th November 1944 to the effect that the goods had not reached him. He sent a notice to the railway company on 8th February 1945 complaining that the goods had not been delivered and asking for payment of their value. To this letter he was not vouchsafed any reply. He then, after going through the necessary formalities, filed this suit on 31st October 1945. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed it as time-barred under Article 31, Limitation Act which prescribes as the period of limitation for a suit against a carrier for compensation, non-delivery or delay in delivering goods one year f...
Koduri Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Levur Gopalareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad36
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this second appeal preferred by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 in O. S. No. 56 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kavali against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in A. S. No. 189 of 1945, the only question that has been canvassed is whether the lower appellate Court was right in differing from the trial Court and holding that the plaintiff is entitled to cut a vent at the place marked C in the channel mentioned in the plan filed along with the plaint.2. What happened was that in the trial Court the plaintiff was given a decree that he was entitled to irrigate his lands specified in the plaint schedule and marked yellow in the plan from the channel C E and the defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the said right of the plaintiff. In giving this decree the learned District Munsif towards the end of para. 8 of his judgment, observed as follows:'I therefore hold following the order Ex. P-5 that the plaintiff i...
Mangalapurapu Dakshayani, Minor by Next Friend Koniki Nagabhushanam Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad37
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition hag been filed on behalf of a minor wife by next friend to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur declining to set aside a custody order he passed in O. P. No. 118 of 1947 on 80th September 1947 on the ground that he had not consulted the wishes of the minor who was a grown up girl before he passed his order.2. The custody order is as follows :'The petitioner as the husband of the minor wife is in law entitled to her custody especially when it is found from his evidence which has not been challenged that his marriage with the minor was consummated three years ago. The respondents have no objection to restore custody. They have endorsed on the petition to that effect. I therefore order the custody of the minor to the petitioner. The parties shall bear their own costs.'3. The respondents to the original petition were the girl's sister and her husband. Along with this revision petition an application for stay of the custody order was admitte...
Koduri Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Lebur Gopalareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ243
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this second appeal preferred by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 in O.S. No. 56 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kavali against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in A.S. No. 189 of 1945, the only question that has been canvassed is whether the lower appellate Court was right in differing from the trial Court and Holding that the plaintiff is entitled to cut a vent at the place marked C in the channel mentioned in the plan filed along with the plaint.2. What happened was that in the trial Court the plaintiff was given a decree that he was entitled to irrigate his lands specified in the plaint schedule and marked yellow in the plan from the channel CE and the defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the said right of the plaintiff. In. giving this decree the learned District Munsif towards the end of paragraph 8 of his judgment, observed as follows:I therefore hold following the order, Ex. P-5, that the plaintif...
Mangalapurapu Dakshayani, by Next Friend Koniki Nagabhushanam Vs. Mang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ303
Mack, J.1. This petition has been filed on behalf of a minor wife by next friend to rivise the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur declining to set aside a custody order he passed in O.P; No. 118 of 1947, on 30th September, 1947, on the ground that he had not consulted the wishes of the minor who was a grownup girl before he passed his order.2. The custody order is as follows:The petitioner as the husband of the minor wife is in law entitled to her custody especially when it is found from his evidence which has not been challenged that his marriage with the minor was. consummated three years ago. The respondents have no objection to restore custody. They have endorsed on the petition to that effect. I therefore order the custody of the minor to the petitioner. The parties shall bear their own costs.3. The respondents to the original petition were the girl's sister and her husband. Along with this revision petition an application for stay of the custody order was admitted and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »