Chennai Court March 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.
Patur Venkataseshayya Vs. Dubagunta Subrahmanyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad547; (1950)1MLJ611
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellant before me wasthe plaintiff in the original suit which has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as on appeal. The suit was for recovery of a certain sum of money said to represent the plaintiff's share of the sale proceeds of a site in Mambalam purchased by defendant l and the father of the plaintiff in the name of defendant l only. The properties sold are two items, one sold in August 1938 and the other in February 1939. The suit was laid on 8-12-1944. The Courts be-low have applied Article 62, Limitation Act, to the suit claim and held it to be beyond time. They have also held that even if Article 120 applied the suit would be in time with reference to the plaintiff's share of the proceeds of sale of February 1939 only and not with reference to the share of the proceeds of sale of August 1938, and that the reliance placed by the plaintiff upon Exs. P-4 and P-4 (a) as saving the bar of limitation with reference to the sale proceeds of August 1938 wa...
Subramania Chetty and anr. Vs. Ganesan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad665
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the first class Bench Court of Salem in S. T. R. No. 189 of 1948 under Sections 448 and 426, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay fines. There was no appeal or revision against these sentences and therefore they became final and hence the merits are now beyond controversy. More than a month after the conviction, the respondent, who was the complainant, applied to the Bench Court for delivery of possession of the house, the trespass in which was the subject matter of the criminal case on the ground that the respondent had been wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioner. For the reason that the application was made more than one month after the disposal of the criminal case, the trial Court dismissed the application whereupon the respondent, by an original application as it were, applied to the Sessions Court for an order directing the delivery of possession of the house to him. The learned Sessions Judge after considering certain decision...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zammindar Garu Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad234; (1950)IIMLJ459
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Vijayawarla in O. S. No. 70 of 1943 on the file of his Court in so far as it is against them. To understand and appreciate the contentions of the parties to this appeal, it is necessary to state the following facts which are either undisputed or well established. Raja Bommadavara Naganaa Nayudu and the defendant who is the respondent before us are brothers and, were members of an undivided Hindu family. The defendant filed a suits for partition of the joint family properties against his brother Naganna Nayudu in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru (O. S. No. 38 of 1919). A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 21-1-1921 and eventually the final decree was passed on 30-11-1929. Each of the brothers was allotted a half share in the family properties. The suit lands were accretions to the main land comprised in the joint family estate formed in the river Kri...
S.N. Pachamuthu Nadar Vs. Naga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad295
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Original Petition no. 49 of 1948 on the file of the District Court of East Tanjore is I an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis by some relators of a temple seeking to recover property on behalf of the temple and for possession to be delivered over to the defaulting truatees who had not taken steps to get the pro-party from the alienees. The point was raised as to whether the petitioners respondents could sue in that capacity unless it is shown that the entice body of people who claim to be worshippers of this temple are paupers. The learned Judge has found that individually the petitioners are paupers and therefore granted the application to sue in forma pauper is. Mr. G.R. Jagadisa Aiyar for the petitioner in this Court relies upon a decision of Rajamannar J. as he then was in Vellingiri Naicken v. Sree Patteswaraswami Devastanam : (1949)1MLJ558 . The learned Judge there had to consider the case where some members of a village community sought leave...
K. Nagabhushana Reddy Minor by Guardian K.V. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad279; (1950)2MLJ482
Horwill, J. 1. The appellant filed a suit for partition. It was opposed by defendant 2 (respondent) on the ground that the appellant had no right to the property, because the person from whom the property was obtained, i. e., defendant l, was not the adopted son of defendant 2. The suit was decreed; and the appeal 500 the District Court and the second appeal to this Court by the present respondent were unsuccessful. The respondent thereupon filed a suit in the District Court, Anantapur, which is still pending, for a declaration that the decree passed in the former suit was obtained by fraud and was therefore not binding on her. With the plaint she filed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Court from passing a final decree in the partition suit. The District Judge dismissed the application, whereupon the respondent filed C. M. A. no. 599 of 1949 to this Court, which is pending. With the appeal the respondent filed an application for an interim Injunction to have ef...
Maddukuri Rattamma and ors. Vs. Mattina Venkata Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad694
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere in revision. All simple creditors need not be brought on record in a partition suit. Order 1 Rule 10, Civil P. C., has the word 'may' and not 'shall.' Such creditors can always file suits and get the properties of the minor plaintiffs attached before judgment if justified and allowable. The father has been adjudicated insolvent in I. P. No. 5 of 1948, and the Official Receiver, East Godavari, is defendant 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that all the debts due to these creditors are shown in the schedule prepared in the insolvency petition. So, the Official Receiver can protect the interest of all the creditors, and he is the proper person to do so. The ruling in Official Assignee, Madras v. Ramchandra Iyer : AIR1928Mad735 , and other rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners require nothing more. No doubt, the minor plaintiffs allege that their father has incurred some debts for illegal or immoral purpose...
Manda Venkayya Vs. Margeni Pitchayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad391; (1950)IIMLJ629
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the appellant (decree-holder). The respondents (judgment-debtors) are absent and are unrepresented by any counsel. The point is simple. The appellant had filed E. P. No. 65 of 1944 in S. C. No. 535 of 1931 Sub-Court, Masulipatam, on 17-12-1943 within 12 years of the decree dated 6-2-1982, and within three years of the amended decree dated 18-12-1940 for attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtors. So that E. P. was in time. But he had, on 22-3-1944, after limitation had operated, added on a slip, pasted to the E. P., when it was returned for rectification in another respect, adding further reliefs, like arrest of the judgment-debtors, attachment and sale of their moveable, etc. This addition was clearly time barred and was rightly objected to by the judgment-debtors, and rejected by the lower appellate Court. But, in doing this, the lower appellate Court also held, t...
Balasubramanian Chettiar Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad783; (1950)IIMLJ206
Horwill, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant in these appeals sought to have the sale, brought about by his landlord for arrears of rent, set aside on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. Both the Courts below held against him and found that he had shown no cause for setting aside the sale. The suits were dismissed and in appeal the dismissals were confirmed. Then the plaintiff preferred second appeals to this Court. 2. Before the matter came on for consideration by Wadsworth J., in second appeal, Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946 had been passed, which required all suits to be stayed:'Which were (a) for the eviction of tenants from their holdings or land .... in which a claim for such eviction was involved .... or (b) in which the sale of the holding of a tenant or ryot for recovery of rant is claimed.' 3. The learned Judge did not think that there were any merits in the second appeals as far as the questions in issue in the suits were concerned; and he did not consider that Section 4 ...
Mooka, Naicker Vs. A.K. Venkatasami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad807; (1950)IIMLJ194
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case the appellant as a condition of obtaining an order of stay of execution of a certain decree against which he had filed an appeal in this Court was asked by this Court to make a deposit of the amount of the decree of the Court below which the respondent before me, the decree-holder, was directed to take out on furnishing security. The respondent could not furnish security and did not take out the money. It was contended in the execution petition (filed after the disposal of the appeal against the decree) out of which this appeal arises that interest ceased to run with the deposit of the amount of the decree of the Court below by the appellant as a condition of the stay order made pending the disposal of the appeal against the decree itself. The contention was negatived by the Court below but is repeated here. There is authority of this Court binding upon me, the decision of a Bench reported in Periakaruppan Chettiar v. Veerappa Chettiar, : AIR1944Mad46 whi...
Bonthala Baliah Vs. Santiveerappa Sivarudrappa Srigari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad800; (1950)IIMLJ162
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two connected appeals arise out of orders passed by the District Judge of Cuddappah in insolvency. The insolvent filed I. A. No. 45 of 1943 under Sections 35 and 38, Provincial Insolvency Act. It was alleged in the petition that the insolvent proposed to satisfy the creditors at the rate of a rupee for a rupee on the amounts of the debts due to them and therefore, requested the Court to approve of his proposal and annul the adjudication. In the schedule annexed to the application the total amount of the debts was shown at Rs. 15016-0-6. The progress of this application is disclosed in the B diary. After notices were served on all the creditors, the application was posted for enquiry to 15th December 1943. Some of the creditors, respondents 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15 filed a counter stating that they would agree only if the amounts payable under the promissory notes in their favour and interest upto the date of payment were paid. The insolvent undertook to pay like that. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »