Chennai Court April 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.
Gutta Radhakristnayya Minor, by Mother and Guardian Nagarattamma Vs. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad213; (1950)2MLJ338
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the preliminary decree for partition in O. S. No. 24 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam. The plaintiff is the paternal grandfather of the defendant. The defendant's father was Satyanarayana who died in the year 1921. They constituted members of a joint Hindu family and possessed of immovable properties set out in Schedules A and B annexed to the plaint and some movables. The plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the family properties and for profits.2. The defendant inter alia, pleaded that there was a partition of the family properties through the intervention of mediators and he wag put in possession of the properties that fell to his share. He relied upon a document em. bodying the arrangement between the parties. He also resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from questioning the alleged partition on the doctrine oi part performance. As many as eleven issues ...
Kamala Bai Ammal Vs. theethachari Alias Appu Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad345; (1950)2MLJ286
Subba Rao, J.1. The question in this appeal turns upon the construction of Section 4, Claue (h) of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938. One Ranga Rao executed a deed of mortgage dated 8-12-1930, for a sum of Rs. 2750 in favour of his daughter Seethammal, In execution of a money decree obtained by a creditor against Ranga Rao, the mortgaged properties were purchased by one Krishna Rao, subject to the suit mortgage. Krishna Rao in his turn sold the equity of redemption in the properties to the sister-in-law, defendant 1. Defendant 2, the husband of defendant 1, is a subsequent mortgagee. Defendants 3 and 4 are the lessees of the properties. Defendant 5 is a sub-mortgagee from Seethammal. See-thanamal died on 24-8-1945. The plaintiff, as her heir, filed O. S. No. 195 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of RS. 7389-2-8 the amount due under the mortgage bond. The defendants contended that the suit mortgage was not supported by consideration, that it w...
Excise Department Vs. Chota Hanmanthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ514
1. This is an appeal submitted by a State against the order of acquittal passed by the Mag, of Alampur dated 13 4.1357 F.2. The Mag. stated in his order that nobody was present on behalf of the Abkari Department, & as the accused was present & the case was one in which a summons was ordinarily to be issued, the case is dismissed for default under Section 219, Hya. Cr. P.C., & the accused is acquitted.3. Learned Advocate for applt. argued that the order of dismissal for default was contrary to law. He also states that a petn. for adjournment was sent through the Sub Inspector of Abkati, bit that he could not submit the same in Ct. in good time due to sickness of his wife.4. After going through the provisions of Section 219, Hyd. Cr. P.C., we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal for default cannot be upheld. The proviso to the Section lays down that where the complainant is a public servant & bis personal attendance is not required, the Mag. may dispense with his attendance & p...
Chukka Annam Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Kolachala Apparao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad231; (1950)2MLJ396b
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This second appeal originally came on before Panchapagesa Sastri J. who referred it to a Division Bench in view of the conflict of decisions between Mummina Demudu v. Pappayaraju, 1943-2 M. L. J. 657 : A. I. R. 1944 Mad. 186 and Atchanna v. Seetaramaswami, : AIR1950Mad387 .2. This second appeal arises out of a suit for evicting certain tenants in occupation of lands in an agraharam which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, which amended Clause (d) of Section 3 (2), Madras Estates Land Act, I [1] of 1908. The only facts necessary foe understanding the point which falls for decision are as follows: The first respondent's father an Inamdar obtained a decree for eviction in respect of the suit lands on 7-4-1933 and obtained delivery of them on 23-5-1933. He let the lands to the defendants by a lease dated 22-6-1933. The period of lease was one year ending 16-3-1934, The defendants, however, continued to remain in possession ...
Devulapalli Ramamoorthy Sastri Vs. Jallu Ammanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad376; (1950)IIMLJ442
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question for determination in this batch of caaes is whether as held by the Courts below the village of Timmarajupalem agraharam is a whole village inam falling within Section 3 (2) (d), Madras Estates Land Act, as amended by the Madras Estates Land Amending Act, II [2] of 1945. On that depends the determination n of other questions such as whether the defendants have occupancy rights and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The Courts below (the District Munsif of Kovvur and on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Elluru) either dismissed the suits or returned the plaints for presentation to the revenue Court in the view that they took in favour of the defendants that the agraharam is an estate within the s'atute. The plaintiff, the senior proprietor of the agraharam village has therefore filed these second appeals, revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals.2. It is clear from Ex. D-12 dated 8-12-1902, a certified copy of the Perma...
Pattipati Ramalingaiah and anr. Vs. Nagulagunta Subbarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad390; (1950)IIMLJ634
Panchapagesa Sastri, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two actions instituted by the villagers of Somasila and Kammavaripalli in Nellore District for recovery of Rs. 120 and Rs. 240 respectively from defendant 1, in both the actions. There is a tank by name Mallacheruvu which is situate at the junction of three villages, Samasila, Kambhempaud and Kammavaripalli. The right of catching fish in the tank for the year 1944 was leased out by revenue auction. At that auction, defendant 1 was the sole bidder for Rs. 11-4-0. His bid was accepted and he became the purchaser of the right. He appears to have granted a lease of this right to defendant 3 for Rs. 600. There is evidence to show that in that year the fishery crop, if I may use the expression, was a good one, and was probably worth considerably more than Rs. 600 possibly Rs. 800 or 900. The case of the plaintiffs was that there was an arrangement amongst the villagers as a result of which there was an agreement not to bid against eac...
A.L. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Chinnasami Alias Samba Goundan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad263; (1950)2MLJ328
Subba Rao, J.1. Whether the Madras Agricul-turists Relief Act (Act IV [4] of 1938) in so far as it affected the negotiable instruments is within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature, is the main question that is raised in this second appeal. The material facts that gave rise to this appeal may be stated. 2. On 15-6-1925 one Ponnusami Goundan executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 2500 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are the sons of Ponnuaami Goundan. The plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 42 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for the recovery of the amount due on the promissory note. The defendants inter alia contended that their father was having a long course of borrowing transactions with the plaintiff, that the suit promissory note was the last of a series of renewed promissory notes and that if the suit debt was scaled down by tracing it back to the original loan the whole debt would be wiped out under Madras Act, IV [4]...
Tirugnanasambandam Pillai Vs. K.R. Shanmughasundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad374; (1950)2MLJ553
Rajamannar, C.J.1. One Ramalingam Pillai died on 1-10-1917 leaving behind him his last will and testament dated 27-9-1917. It is not necessary to set out in detail the several provisions of the will. It suffices to state he appointed one Audiappa Naidu as the person to carry out his directions. He is referred to as the trustee but there can be no doubt whatever from a perusal of the several provisions of the will that Audiappa Naidu was also appointed executor. After payment of the debts of the testator, the trustee Audiappa Naidu is directed to do renovation work in certain temples for different amounts, make arrangements for the performance of Pooja in certain temples and make certain other disbursements to his relations and out of the surplus income provide for the education of poor boys of the High School and give them free boarding and lodging. The will then goes on to say that should there be still any surplus income, the trustee shall do other good charities according to his dis...
In Re: M.R. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad267; (1950)1MLJ344
Govinda Menon, J.1. At the close of deli-very of our judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the circumstance that the application has been practically allowed, as in oar opinion the detention of the petitioner under Madras Act XXIII [23] of 1949 after 26th January 1960 was Illegal, the State should be directed to pay the costs of this application. Arguments were heard as to the powers of this Court to award costs in matters like this and since the point raised is bereft of authority in the Indian Courts--at least, no Indian decision was brought to our notice, we reserved judgment on the question of costs alone. 2. Order 35, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rule which came into operation on the 26th January 1950 is to the following effect: 'In disposing of any such Rule, the Courts may in its discretion make such order for costs as it may consider just.' Rules 1 to 5 of Order 35, deal with application: in the nature of habeas corpus provided for under Arti...
The Palghat Wariar Bank Ltd. (In liquidation) through Its Official Liq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad348; (1950)2MLJ450
Raghava Rao, J.1. The interesting question of law debated before me in this second appeal is whether when a company in winding up attaches certain property in execution of a decree in its favour as that of its judgment-debtor, any claim petition by a third patty is to be regarded as 'other legal proceeding' within the meaning of Section 171, Companies Act, which shall not be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court.2. The appellant before me is the plaintiff in the original suit who sued to set aside an order on a claim petition filed by defendant 1 on the basis of an assignment in his favour by defendant 2 regarding the rents of certain properties which had been attached by the plaintiff. The claim succeeded in the execution Court, and the case of the plaintiff is that the assignment was a sham transaction unsupported by consideration which was entered into by defendant 2 with a view to defeating the claim of the plaintiff in execution of its decree...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »