Chennai Court March 1950 Judgments
Goteti Ramachandra Rao and anr. Vs. Kasa Ammiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad356; (1950)IIMLJ551
Raghava Rao, J1. An interesting question of law has been argued in this case before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by the appellants for recovery of possession of the suit house and site and for recovery of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that the property in question having been originally purchased by their father was allotted to them at a partition between themselves and their brothers. They also alleged that defendant 1 was in possession as a lessee under EX. P. 1. The title of the plaintiffs was found by both the Courts below ; but on the question of the genuineness of Ex. p. 1 they have differed, the trial Court holding that it is genuine, but the appellate Court holding contra. The Courts below have also differed on the question whether the plaintiffs have proved possession within 12 years prior to suit the trial Court holding that; they have, but the appellate Court holding that they have not. The suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Naicker Vs. Ghulam Mahmood Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad408; (1951)2MLJ537
ORDERA request has been made on behalf of the defendant that since he is now an elderly man of 62 years, very much attached to the land on which he has spent much thought and energy during the past 33 years, he should be allowed at least one year to accustom himself to the idea of leaving the land. The plaintiff is willing to allow him to continue in possession foe a year from this date, provided that from 1-3-1950 he pays mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 250 per annum from that date until he quits the land. He will of course have to pay the arrears of mesne profits at the old rate of Rs. 100 per annum upto 1-3-1950....
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Murugesa Mudaly Vs. Baruda Arunagiri Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad498; (1950)2MLJ770
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs-right of way across a public street, for a direction to the defendants to remove the obstructions put up by them on the street, and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in using the public street as such. The only answer to the suit which requires consideration in this second appeal is that it was not maintainable without the consent of the Advocate General in the absence of any special damage sustained by the plaintiff. The defence was rejected by the District Munsif of Sholinghur and the suit decreed on his finding that the plaintiff had suffered special damage. This finding was reversed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor who accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.2. The plaintiff and certain others are residents of the Big Street in Narasingapuram. Arkonam taluk. The backyards of their house reach up to the O...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Nadar Vs. Veerabadran Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad456; (1950)2MLJ761
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This case raises a question which is said to be of one of first impression really because the learned counsel on both sides havenot been able to find an exact case on the point. The question relates to the validity of a petition filed to adjudicate respondents 1 to 3 as insolvents. The petitioner, one Karuppiah Nadar, was carrying on business in partnership with another person. The firm's name appears to have been S. K. S. K. N. Karuppiah Nadar. Respondents 1 to 3 had business dealings with that firm and they were indebted to the firm to the extent of Rs. 5347-6-2 as on 3-5-1947. Karuppiah Nadar filed this petition, I. P. No. 4 of 1947, wherein he stated in Para. 3 that 'the respondpnts were carrying on business in partnership and the petitioner is doing commission business in cotton and in the course of business between the petitioning creditor and the respondents, the respondents became indebted to the petitioner in Rs. 6344-6-2 as shown by the extract ...
Tag this Judgment!Durgasi Pydivadu and ors. Vs. Jampana Suryanarayanaraju Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad384
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Various questions have been argued by Mr. Dhikshitalu for the appellants and for a proper understanding of those points it is necessary to set out in brief outlinethe facts which resulted in this litigation. Defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and 10 in O. S. No. 22 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole are the appellants in this appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of two mortgages, Exs. D-1 and D-2 dated 19-6-1922 and 2-4-1923, respectively. The property belonged to defendants 9 and 10, a husband and wife, as tenants-in-common. Both of them mortgaged the properties by two mortgages to defendants 1 to 8. On the basis that each one of them had a separable interest in the properties, a creditor of defendant 9 brought O. S. No. 212 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif of Vizianagaram for realisation of a sum of money and got a decree. In execution of the decree, a half-share in the equity of redemption of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Saraswathi Vilasam Shanmughanandha Nidhi Ltd., by Its Secretary, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad520; [1951]21CompCas85(Mad); (1951)IMLJ18
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of an action instituted by the two respondents who were share-holders and directors of the first appellant company known as 'The Saraswathi Vilasam Shanmu-ghanandha Nidhi, Ltd.,' Vellore. Appellants 2 and 3 who were defendants 2 and sin the lower Court were respectively the Secretary and Vice-President of the said Nidhi. The suit was for a declaration that a certain resolution passed by the general body on 30-4-1944 was invalid. The suit is a representative suit.2. Article 5 of the Memorandum of Association of the company is as follows:'The share capital of the company is Rs. 20,000 divided into 2000 shares of Rs. 10 each.'The object of the company was to carry on the business of banking. The articles of association of the company provided for the management of the company. Article 21 was as follows:'The members of the Managing Committee shall each take not less than 26 shares in the company.'Article 20 ran...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramalinga Pillai Vs. G.R. Jagadammal Alias Jagadamba Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad612; (1951)IMLJ64
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff, whose suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land belonging to defendant 1 was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed on appeal, has preferred this second appeal. Defendant 1 is the wife of defendant 2. Under Ex. P-1, dated 11-10-1943 in the handwriting of the husband and bearing the thumb impressions of the wife, two plots of land belonging to the wife were agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 1750, out of which a sum of Rs. 160 was recited as having been paid in advance. The time for completion of the conveyance and payment of the balance of the price was fixed at one month from the date of the contract and it was provided that an encumbrance certificate should be furnished by the vendor to the purchaser before the execution of the conveyance. The plaintiff alleged that on 22-10-1943 the title deeds of the property were handed over to him, that the tenant of the land was also made to attorn to him and that he purchased s...
Tag this Judgment!Lachuma Goundan, Son of Pachiappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Pandiyappan Ali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad679; (1951)2MLJ658a
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Plaintiffs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 arc the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Nadamuthur and Chinnamuthur against the villagers of Periamuthur and the Province of Madras for a declaration that they were entitled to the usual mamool supply and distribution of the water of the Dasabandam channel taking off from the south Pennar river, for 24 hours as against 12 hours of the defendants, or, in the alternative, for effecting any other fair and equitable distribution of the water flowing in the channel in proportion to the respective wet ayacut extents of the three villages. There was also a claim for Rs. 100 by way of damages against the defendants. The suit has been dismissed by the courts below.2. From the channel styled the Dasabandam channel taking off from the south Pennar river, the wet lands in the three villages have been irrigated from a long time. The channel is an arti...
Tag this Judgment!Goli Paddaraju and ors. Vs. Mattapalli Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad381; (1950)2MLJ537
Subba Rao, J. 1. The mortgagors are the appellants. The history of this litigation is found in the judgment of Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri JJ. in A.S. No. 463 of 1911. It is not necessary to restate the facts as they have been fully stated in that judgment. It will be enough if we notice the relevant facts sufficient for disposing of this appeal. The respondents obtained a preliminary decree on two mortgages on 17-8-1928 against the appellants and others. The final decree was passed on 16-9-1929. Defendants 3 and 15, who are the purchasers of portions of the hypotheca, preferred an appeal to ' the High Court, being A.S. No. 33 of 1929. That appeal was disposed of on 8-12-1933. The preliminary decree was modified in some respects. Whereas under the decree of the Subordinate Judge, all the mortgaged properties were directed to be sold in the order mentioned in the mortgage deed, in the appeal the High Court directed that the properties purchased by defendants 3 and 16 should be sold l...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudaliar Vs. Gopalakrishna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ262
1. In a neat, concise and pointed argument Mr. Thyagaraja Ayyar has taken three points in this case, with which I shall presently deal. It is necessary, however, for me to set forth a few facts before I actually deal with those points.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for the cancellation of a certain order made on an application for re-delivery by the plaintiff. The circumstances in which the application for re-delivery was made are these. The present defendant, appellant before me, is the auction purchaser in execution of a certain decree by a third party against one Kumaraswami Mudali. The purchase was in September, 1942, and the Court delivery pursuant thereto was in October, 1942. The present plaintiff applied for re-delivery on the ground that his younger brother Selvaraja Mudaliar had a usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit P-1, of the year 1936, from Kumaraswami and that there was later, in the year 1940, a release by him of the mortgage right in the pl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »