Chennai Court December 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.
Nallamilli Veerayamma Vs. Nallamilli Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad809; (1951)IMLJ364
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether a widow is entitled to a share in a mtge. debt under the Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act, before it was amended by Act XXVI (26) of 1947. Deft. 2 & Ammi Reddi were brothers & sons of deft. 1, Venkanna. Deft. 3 is the son of deft. 2. Deft 4 is the widow of deft. 1 who died pending suit. The father & sons constituted members of a joint Hindu family. The pltf. as the widow of Ammi Reddi filed the suit for partition & for recovery of possession of her share in the joint family property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. The learned Subordinate Judge gave her a decree for partition in regard to the properties other than agricultural lands. Items 4 & 5 of Sch. B are properties mortgaged in favour of the family. Ex. D. 2 dated 7-3-1945 is the mtge. deed in respect of item 4. Ex. D. 1 dated 21-6-1937 is the mtge. deed in regard-to item 5. The properties secured under the aforesaid two documents consist of both agricu...
Thalagadadivi Saty Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Yellapragada Ananda Rao and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad491; (1951)IMLJ410
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. In this second appeal, the plff. appellant seeks in substance a declaration that two orders of the District Collector, Krishna, dated 27-11-1937 & 31-7-1942 are Illegal & 'ultra vires'. In the suit he also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the District Collector, Krishna to recognise the plff. as the permanent headman of the village of Thalagadadivi but that prayer is now out of the case & is not pressed. From 1937 the plff. was making unsuccessful attempts to assume charge as headman of the village alter he had attained majority & qualified himself to the post. His right to the headmanship was recognised in 1933 during his minority & he was registered under Section 10(5), Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, as the person entitled to succeed to the office. The plff.'s father, Mallikarjuna Prasada Rao was the village munsif of Thalagadadivi till he was dismissed from service on 21-4-1932 as he was found guilty of misappropriation of Govt., money amo...
Kattikoolathil Mammu Vs. Vinayaka Kamath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad816; (1951)IMLJ420
ORDERGovinda Menon, J. 1. In 'Viriah v. Subbarao : (1949)1MLJ316 following the observations of Spencer & Venkatasubba Rao JJ. in 'Dhanammal v. Veeraraghavahi', 44 MLJ 325: AIR 1923 Mad 487, Horwill J., & myself have laid down that the word 'interest' in Order 21, Rule 89 has got a very wide import & should be construed very liberally. Any inchoate right which a party may have over a property may be sufficient interest to enable him to apply under Order 21, Rule 89. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar contends that attachment of property does not confer any interest on the attaching creditor, except that if the property is alienated by the act of parties such alienation will have no precedence over the attachment. He invites my attention to the observations in 'Krishnasami Mudaliar v. Official Assignee, Madras', 26 Mad 673 to the effect that an order of attachment merely restrains a debtor's debtor from paying to the debtor the money attached & restrains the debtor from receiving the same. In 'Narayan...
Chava Seetha Ramayya Vs. Kadiyala Pattayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad853; (1951)IMLJ577
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This civil misc. appeal raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether, under Order XXI (21), Rule 2, C. P. C., a decree for the dismantling of a wall, & the delivery of a plot on which the wall stands, to the D. H., can be adjusted after the decree is passed, & the adjustment pleaded 'in bar of execution', though such an adjustment has not been certified to the Ct., & whether in such a case the mere award of a sum of money as costs in the decree would prevent such an arrangement being gone into or wculd enable the J. D. to escape execution for the costs also till the arrangement Is gone into. The facts are briefly these :2. The applt. here, Seetharamayya, got a decree for possession of a small strip of land from the resp., Pattayya, in O. S. No. 736 of 1944, & the deft. was asked to give delivery after dismantling the wall standing on that strip of land, & directed to construct a wall on his own land beyond that strip if he liked. The J. D. did not di...
Raju's Cafe and Ors. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad865; (1951)ILLJ219Mad; (1951)1MLJ236
Rajamannar, C.J.1. On 9-4-1948, the Govt. of Madras by G. O. No. 1791 Development, made a reference under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal having its place of sitting at Coimbatore, of an industrial dispute, which had arisen between the workers & managements of hotels in the whole of the Coimbatore district in respect of certain matters, for adjudication. The notfn. did not mention the hotels by name; nor did it specify the matters in respect of which an industrial dispute had arisen. The introductory part of the G. O. referted to a report from the Comr. of Labour, but no further light is thrown on the matter, because that report is stated to be only to the effect that an industrial dispute had arisen between the workers & managements of the hotels in the whole of the Coimbatore district in rospect of certain matters & that the parties to the dispute were unable to arrive at an amicable settlement. The industrial tribunal sent notices inter al...
Chullikana Shambatta and ors. Vs. Cherakoodlu Narayana Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad917; (1951)IMLJ596
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting & intricate question of law relating to subrogation. The case was ably argued on both sides & the problem raised is bare of authority. The right of defts. 8, 9 & 11 who are the appellants, to subrogation in, respect of two earlier mortgages, was denied by the lower Court & hence this appeal.2. On 20-5-1910 one Krishna Bhatta & his two sons Venkatesa Bhatta & Govinda Bhatta borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000, & created a usufructuary mortgage as security on the properties described in the deed of mortgage Ex. D. 3. This mortgage was in favour of Madanna Bhatta & Subbanna Bhatta. On 10-4-1926 Govinda Bhatta for himself & on behalf of his minor son Ganapathi Bhatta & Vishnu Bhatta, the younger brother of Govinda Bhatta, Krishna Bhatta and Venkatesa Bhatta having died meanwhile, borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000 from one Atchuta Bhatta and created a simple mortgage for the amount under Ex. D. 11. The family of Krishna Bhatta & his sons was undiv...
Doraikannu Asari Vs. Nataraja Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ26
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This appeal challenges the validity of the order of the District Judge permitting the first respondent to come on record as a party to the appeal pending before him in A.S. No. 324 of 1949. The first respondent purchased the property in dispute which is a house situated in Chingleput town from one of the parties to the suit on 12th October, 1949, between the date of the decree in favour of the third respondent and the filing of the appeal to the District Judge by the aggrieved party. While the appeal was pending in the District Court, the parties entered into a compromise and in consequence thereof, a compromise memo was filed on 4th January, 1950, which was recorded on the same day. But a decree in terms thereof was not passed immediately for some reason which is not necessary to mention here.2. The next day, the first respondent coming to know of this, filed a petition under Order 22, Rule 10, for being impleaded as a party to that appeal so that he could attack t...
In Re: M.A. Venkatachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ421
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7(1) of Act XXIV of 1946 read with Clause 4(1) of the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order 1948 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.2. The petitioner has been issued a retail licence but in the licence issued a clause was added prohibiting him from selling B. and G. Mill cloth. The conviction now is for violating this condition and selling 3/4 yard to P.W. 3 and 2 yards to P.W. 4. This sale is said to have been effected between 3rd March, 1949, and 10th March, 1949 ; but on application already made, the petitioner got permission to sell B. and G. Mill cloth also, by order, dated 15th March, 1949. However the authorities still chose to prosecute the petitioner though such cares do not need to be brought to Court as they are purely of a technical nature. But the petitioner having been convicted, the point is raised whether such a clause as prohibiting him to sell B. and C. Mill cloth can be introduced in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›