Chennai Court November 1950 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.
Thadi Konda Veeraswami Vs. Thullum Peda Lakshmudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad715; (1951)IMLJ194
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The question involved in this civil revision petn. is very simple, namely, whether where a pltf. files a petn. to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter under Order 23, Rule 1 (2), C. P. C., the Ct. has got the right to dismiss the petn. telling him that he might withdraw the suit if ho wants but that it will not give him permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter. The lower Ct. is said to have dismissed the suit (o. S. No. 95 of 1944) later on, but we are not concerned in this civil revision petn. with this alleged later order of dismissal, which is not filed here, on a subsequent unconditional withdrawal or non-prosecution of the suit. I have absolutely no doubt that the lower Ct. had the right & jurisdiction to pass an order it did. The law regarding the withdrawal of a suit under Order 23, Rule l, C. P. C. ia well settled. Order 23, Rule l (1) givesthe pltf. the liberty to withdra...
The Official Receiver, East Tanjore, representing the estate of the In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad687; (1951)IMLJ200
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The Official Receiverof East Tanjore, representing the estate of the insolvent in I. P. No. 14 of 1949 on the file of the District Court of East Tanjore, appeals against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli directing that he should be added as respondent 2 in E. p. No. 679 of 1949 in O. S. No. 80 of 1948 on the file of the said Subordinate Judge, and that execution should proceed after the Official Eeceiver is added as respondent 2. 2. On 17-12-1947, respondent 1 before the lower Court executed an agreement in favour of the decree-holder, who is respondent 1 in this appeal, promising to execute a mortgage over certain properties for the discharge of a sum of Rs. 22,000 and odd due by him to respondent 1 in this Court, O. S. no. 80 of 1948 in the Sub-Court of Tirucbirapalli was filed on 20-4-1948 for specific performance of the con-tract to execute the mortgage in which the present respondent l was the plaintiff and the present respondent 2, Subbaram...
The Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ254
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the title of the plaintiffs and the third defendant to the suit property. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the village of Karaikudi, which formed part of the Zamindari of Sivaganga. The suit site is within the Geographical limits of the said Zamindari. In 1918 in the survey plan it was shown as part of Koppudayanayagi Amman Sannadhi Street. In 1935 on re-survey also it was demarcated as a public street. On 24th January, 1940 the Government issued a notification under Section 61(2) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, withdrawing the site from the control of the Municipal Council. On 29th January 1944 the Collector of Ramanadhapuram made an order under Section 20A(1)(a) of the Madras Estates Land Act declaring that the suit site was no longer required for street purposes. On 30th May, 1944, the District Collector passed another order under Section 20A(1)(b)(ii) of the Act transferring the same as ryotwari la...
Saraswathi Raithi and ors. Vs. Duggamma Shedthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad500; (1951)IMLJ581
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plffs, here appellants, claim maintenance at a rate higher than that decreed to them by the trial court. The parties are members of an Alayasanthana family of which deft. 1 is the ejamanthJ. Plffs. 2 to 7 are the children of plff. 1 & plff. 1 & defts. 2 to 8 are the daughters & sons of deft. 1. There were 28 members of the branch of deft. 1 on the date of suit, & the properties out of which maintenance is now claimed by the plffs. were allotted to the branch of deft. 1 under an award, Ex. D. 39, dated 12-2-1932 Though the suit was laid for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 as arrears of maintenance for the period from 1-5-1934 till 25-10-1945, the court below granted a decree only for Rs. 2668-8-0, for the period from July 1941 to 25-10-1945. On appeal an additional sum of Rs. 2881-4-0 is claimed as maintenance for this period, the claim for the earlier years having been given up. Mr. Adiga for the appellants contends that the court below has grossly under-estimate...
In Re: S.N. Komarasawami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad766; (1951)IMLJ422
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. There are no merits in this application. There was an application for eviction of the petnr. from the premises of which he was in occupation and he failed in both the Courts. In execution of the order of eviction it turned out that the premises of which the petnr. is admittedly in occupation and which admittedly belongs to the landlord, was given a wrong door number. So, the landlord filed an application for amendment of the description of the property by correcting the door number. The learned Subordinate Judge, who was the appellate tribunal, has directed an amendment of the petition, the order of the lower Court and the order of the appellate tribunal. This application is to quash this order.2. It was contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petnr. that the application was made under Section 151, Civil P. C. which did not apply and also that the landlord should have approached the Rent Controller and not the appellate tribunal for an amendment, even assu...
A. Sankunni Menon Vs. South Indian Railway Having their Head Office at ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad502; (1951)IMLJ463
Panchapagesa Sastry, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plff. against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dismissing his suit on a preliminary point namely that a proper statutory notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C., has not been given by the plff. before the suit was instituted. There are four defts. to the suit. The first is the South Indian Railway. The second is the Madras & Southern Maharatta Railway. The third Is the Great Indian Peninsular Railway & the fourth is the Governor-General in Council, New Delhi. The plff's case was that he despatched from Calicut to self at Kalapipal, a station in the G. I. P. Railway, 34 bags of dry coconuts, 11 bags of moist coconuts & 77 bags of copra balls by invoice dated 17-7-1944. He charged the railway system with wilful default & negligence & misconduct as the goods were wrongfully diverted &otherwise; unduly delayed in the course of transit. It was only after continued enquiries regarding the delay at the other en...
T.M. Arumugam Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad115; (1951)IMLJ169
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner applies, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for an order that he should be released from the custody, in which he finds himself, as result of the order of the State, under the Preventive Detention Act IV [4] of 1960.2. By the order dated 1-4-1948 under Section 2 (1) (a), Madras Act of 1947, the petitioner was ordered to be detained by the Provincial Government, because his being at large was, in the opinion of the Provincial Government, prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order. Though the order of detention was paaaed, the petitioner never surrendered himself to the police and all efforts to apprehend him proved unsuccessful, as the petitioner evaded arrest for a long time. As a result, action was taken under Sections 87 and 88, Cri. P. C., and the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender. Eventually be was arrested by Mathurai Police on 29-4-1949 under Section 54, Gri. P. C., brought to Madras and produced...
O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. the Comr. of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad204; [1951]19ITR402(Mad); (1951)IMLJ417
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appct. was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore circle, South Arcot district by his order dated 4-2-1948. He filed an appln, before the Comr. of Income-tax under Section 33-A (2) of the Act for revn. of this order dated 18-2-1949. The appln. was rejected in limine by the Comr. on the ground that the revn. petn. was barred by time. According to the petnr., the order sought to be revised was received by him only on 24-2-1948. He has filed this appln. for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Gomr. of Income-tax Madras, directing him to entertain his appln. & to dispose of it in accordance with law, because according to him the appln. was within time as it was filed within one year from the date of the receipt of the assessment order by him.2. The only question on the merits which falls for decision is whether the one year has to be computed from the date when the order was signed by the Income-tax Officer, or the date when it was communicate...
T. Kunhikkalavan Vs. E. Kochuraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad685; (1951)IMLJ486
Chandra Reddi, J. 1.The plaintiff, whose claim to recover the suit property was dismissed by the District Munsif of Chowghat and confirmed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, has preferred this second appeal. The suit came to be instituted by the appellant in the following circumstances : The suit properties originally belonged to one Kunhikalavan. He executed a will marked Ex. P. 1 in the case, on the 26th of July 1895 giving a life estate to his wife, Kunhikurumba, and the remainder to his nephews, that is, his brother's sons, Raman and Kunhayappan. The will recited that after the death of his wife Kunhikurumba the sons of his younger brother Paru, namely, Raman and Kunhayappan, and their descendants should enjoy the properties. There was also a pious wish expressed therein that these legatees and their descendants will look after his daughters. During the lifetime of Kunhikalavan one of the legatees, Kunhayappan, died with the result that Raman became the sole legatee under the w...
Kakumanu Venkatasubbamma Vs. Kakumanu Venugopala Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad814; (1951)IMLJ468
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This civil misc. second appeal is against the judgment & decree of the Dist. J., Guntur, dated 31-7-1948, in C. M. A. No. 23 of 1948, & raises three important questions: (1) Whether the Insolvency Ct. can order dividends paid on time-barred debts, expunged from the schedule, to be put back into Ct.; (2) Whether the Official Receiver, like a full owner, can acknowledge & pay at his will & pleasure time-barred debts; & (3) whether a creditor, authorised & directed by the Official Receiver can file a petn. under Section 50, Provincial Insolvency Act, in the Insolvency Ct., to have debts incorrectly or improperly admitted expunged from the schedule & get a valid order.2. C. M. A. No. 23 of 1948 was an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dated 19-1-1948, in I. A. No. 233 of 1947, in O. P. NO. 54 of 1935, an appln. of the resp., Venugopala Rao, a creditor of the insolvent in I. P. No. 54 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »