Chennai Court February 1950 Judgments
Valliammai Ammal Vs. E.L. Shankara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad562
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by one Valliammai Ammal, a daughter of one Palaniappa to recover properties specified in the three schedules attached to the plaint. Palaniappa died as far back as 7th November1894, leaving him surviving three widows, Chinnathayi, Muthhammal and Avudayammal and also a daughter by a predeceased wife, by name Subbammal, two daughters of Muthammal whose names it is unnecessary to mention and the present plaintiff, the daughter of Avudayammal. Palaniappa died possessed of a fairly large estate and quarrels ensued between his two widows, Muthammal and Avudayammal, Chinnathayi having left Palaniappa during his lifetime a long time back. In settlement of the quarrels between the two widows, there came into existence the agreement, Ex. D-4, dated 13th March 1895, which divided the assets and liabilities of the deceased Palaniappa in more or less equal moieties. Thereupon Chinnathayi began to intervene with her claim with the result that...
Tag this Judgment!Rayapprolu Viswanadham Vs. Rayaprolu Dakshinamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad573
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the, order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dismissing the appellant's application under Order 41, Rule 19, Civil P. C., to set aside the order of dismissal for default of an appeal and restore the same to file. It is common ground that on 9th September 1947 on which date the appeal stood finally posted, the appellant did not turn up and did not produce the revenue extracts as required by the Court. In the application for restoration, the appellant alleged two grounds for his default; one was the illness of his sister, who, according to him, was ailing for over two months before that date and ultimately died in his house on 3rd September 1947, that is, six days before the date on which the appeal was posted. He was also ailing for about a month at or about that time. On these two grounds be prayed that the appeal should be restored to file after setting aside the order dismissing his appeal for default. The allegations in the af...
Tag this Judgment!Kullappa Mudaliar Vs. Palaniappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad574
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. The petitioner seeks a revision of the order of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore directing him to deliver the properties in his possession to the respondents, who claim to be entitled thereto on the death of a minor ward, for whose properties the petitioner had been appointed as a guardian by the District. Court under Section 16, Guardians and Wards Act. The ward died before attaining majority. The respondents claiming to be entitled to the estate as next heirs applied to the District Court that the petitioner, the guardian appointed by that Court, should be directed to hand over to them the possession of the properties of which he had taken charge as guardian. Objection was taken on the part of the guardian to the grant of the relief claimed by the respondents on various grounds. The main contention was that the Court had no power under Section 41, Sub-section (3), Guardians and Wards Act, to direct the certificated guardian to hand over the pr...
Tag this Judgment!V. Somasundara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. the Madras Provincial Co-operativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad711
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The main facts which have led to this application are not in dispute. The premises in question belonged to the second petitioner, V. Sridharan who during his minority was represented by his mother and guardian Navaneethammal. It was only acting as guardian of his son that she let the building to the contesting respondent before us. Admittedly a portion of the premises was sub-let in October 1947. It was also admitted that this sub-letting was done without the written consent of Navaneethammal, the only person who could have at that time given such consent on behalf of the owner, her son. The property was transferred to petitioner 1 before us on 17th February 1949. On 1st April 1949 the contesting respondent attorned to plaintiff-petitioner 1. An application was filed both by the vendor and the purchaser for eviction on the ground that a part of the building had been sub-let after the commencement of the Act without the written consent of the landlord. The Rent Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Naranappa Naicker Vs. Ramalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad553; (1950)IIMLJ13
Raghava Rao, J. 1. The question in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is whether the exe-oution petition out of which this appeal arises is barred by time. The Court below has held that it is. 2. The appellant is a mortgagee decree. holder, who is in the present proceeding seeking to execute the decree against the properties in Sch. d, to the plaint in the hands of the contesting respondent, respondent 22,. who came to be impleaded before decree as the legal representative of defendant 5 in the suit. Defendant 15 is the purchaser of the properties subsequent to the mortgage as well as the charge. The present execution petition against defendant 5 is one presented admittedly more than three years from the date of the order on the last execution petition, namely, 31st January 1941. 3. It was contended for the decree-holder in the Court below that the present execution petition stood saved from the bar of limitation by a letter of aoknowledgment passed by defendant 15, Ex. P-1, dated 5th J...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundan Vs. Komaraswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad558
Raghava Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of properties of which respondent 2's father became purchaser in execution of a small cause decree obtained by him against the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's complaint is that the execution of the decree levied in respect of the suit properties which had become the plaintiff's under a settlement deed between the plaintiff, his father and his paternal uncle is not binding upon him. Prior to the present suit, there was an earlier one by the plaintiff represented by his mother as his next friend for the same reliefs in which the question of the real or nominal character of the settlement was gone into. The learned District Munsif who tried that suit decreed it holding that the settlement was real and operative. On appeal taken by the present respondent that decision was reversed, without the mother of the plaintiff on whom notice had been served as the guardian ad litem of the plaintiff appearing. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chundru Akkamma and anr. Vs. Chundru Brahmadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad617
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellants before me are defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit which was one for a declaration that a surrender by defendant' 1, a Hindu widow, in favour of one Satyam as the then nearest reversioner who afterwards died, and a gift deed by Satyam to defendants 2 and 3 consequently are invalid against the plaintiff and the other reversioners to the estate of defendant 1's husband. The surrender deed (Ex. D. 1, dated 27th July 1937), the gift deed by Satyam (Ex. D-2 dated 31st July 1937), under which the appellants claim the property in their possession and another deed (Ex. D-3 dated 30th July 1937), a deed of sale by Satyam to a stranger of a small bit of the whole property surrendered for a small sum of Rs. 20 have been found by the lower appellate Court which confirmed the decree of the trial Court in the plaintiff's favour to be parts and parcels of a single and indivisible scheme by which defendant 1'a nominees, defendants 2 and 3, were to stand benefited. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tulabandu Basavayya Alias Chinna Basavayya Vs. Sri Satyabhigna theerth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1950
Reported in: (1950)IIMLJ607
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. These three civil revision petitions arise out of three suits instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali, by the head of the Uttaradi Mutt as trustee of a religious endowment, for the recovery of lands in the possession of the defendants in the respective suits. The averments in the pleadings, the issues raised and the evidence adduced ate common to the three suits which were tried together and decided by a common judgment, both original and appellate. The lands in suit are situate in Devarapalle agraharam. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants in each of the three suits were his lessees whose term had expired but who, nevertheless, continued in possession of the lands under an untenable claim of permanent occupancy rights. The defendant contended that the lands in the suit were 'ryoti' lands situated in an 'estate' and that they had therefore acquired occupancy rights therein under Section 6 (1), Madras Estates Land Act, hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Athivarapu Venkatarami Reddi Vs. Kotamreddi Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad582
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 781 of 1933, District Munsif Court, Nellore, against the order of the District Judge, Nellore, dated 7th October 1947, in A. S. 111 of 1947 on his file, setting aside the Kavali District Munsif's order, dated 13th December 1946, in E. P. No. 48 of 1946, in O. S. No. 781 of 1933, and dismissing the execution petition as barred by limitation, as the order of the District Munsif, Nellore, dated 27th January 1936, in EX. P. 5 (a), directing simultaneous execution in his Court as well as the District Munsif Court, Kavali, had been passed without notice to the judgment-debtors and was illegal and would not serve as a step-in aid of execution and save limitation regarding the subsequent execution petitions, including E. P. No. 48 of 1946, under the rulings in Gurudas Adbya v. Jnanendra Narain : AIR1935Cal268 and Lakshman Hari Kanhere v. V. G. Virkar : AIR1939Bom258 .2. I have perused the entire records, and heard ela...
Tag this Judgment!Vedachala Naicker Vs. P.K. Duraiswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad593; (1950)1MLJ732
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition is brought against the order of the Court of the District Munsif, Poonamallee in I. A. No. 1066 of 1946. The petitioner was the defendant in O. Section No. 331 of 1946 instituted by the landlord in ejectment on the ground that the tenancy was determined. He pleaded that he was entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, by reason of the fact that the suit site was included in the City of Madras with effect from 1-4-1946. He also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act within the time prescribed by the section praying that the Court might be pleased to direct the plaintiff-landlord to sell him the land for a price to be fixed by the Court according to the provisions of that section. 2. Some time thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1, to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that there was a formal deject in the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »