Chennai Court September 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.
K. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. Ummar Koya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad472
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed an application on 7-2-1949, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 7-1-1949 and tendered as security shares of the face value of Rs. 3,000 in the South Indian Bank, Trichur and also deposited a sum of RS. 200 as required under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. An objection was taken by the plaintiff that shares which were not fully paid up could not be accepted as security and therefore, there was no compliance with the requirements of Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There, upon, the petitioner defendant filed an application to excuse delay in furnishing security and deposited along with that application a Sum of Rs. 1,000 to make up the decretal amount. This application to excuse delay was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application as Section 5, Limitation Act, is not applicable to the provisions of Section 17, Provincial Sma...
M.A. Jaleel Sahib Vs. Seeniappa Ramaswami Mudaliar and Co., by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad665; (1951)IMLJ87
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. An interesting question of law has been raised in this case, namely, whether a Court exercising insolvency jurisdiction can direct addition of parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. Both the Courts answered the question in the affirmative and hence this civil revision, petition.2. A creditor filed an application for adjudging the petitioner an insolvent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli Pending the disposal of this petition the respondent herein came by way of an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. to be added as an additional party to the petition. This petition was ordered by the Subordinate Judge. On appeal by the debtor the order of the trial Court was confirmed.3. In this petition it is urged by Mr. Ahmed Meeran, learned counsel for the petitioner thata Court while exercising insolvency jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to direct the addition of parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C., when there is a specific provis...
Kadalundi Pulikkalakath Saidalayi Thangal Vs. Thrikkannur Pulathottath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad670; (1950)IIMLJ767
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit under Section 21, Malabar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for restoration of possession of land which the pltf. haying held it on a Kanom under deft 1 surrendered to him after expiry of the term in response to a demand by deft 1 that he required it for his own cultivation. The pltf's case is that he did not 'bona fide' so require it, because deft 1 having thus obtained possession on 16-3-1943 made a transfer of the property to deft 2 on 28-3-1943 barely 12 days afterwards. The answer to the action so far as material to the disposal of this second appeal was twofold : (1) that there was no eviction of the pltf in a suit under Section 20 of the Act for any right of suit for restoration under Section 21 to arise or accrue; & (2) that the suit laid on 9-10-1944 more than one year from the date of the transfer is time barred under Section 43 (1) (a) of the Act. The Cts below have concurrently negatived the firs...
Patinhare Edora Tholon Chutha Vs. Pannichikkool Kunhammad Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad671; (1950)2MLJ760
ORDERGovinda Menon, J. 1. Exhibit B. 1 was a marupat executed by the deft on 7-1-1918, by which it was agreed that 120 seers of paddy would be paid as rent. This state of things continued till 15-2-1945 when the deft who was holding over-under the old Marupat renewed the same agreeing to pay a rent of 190 seers of paddy & 2 bunches of bananas. The present suit is forarrears of rent for two years, namely, the Malayalam years 1122 & 1123. During the pendency of the suit the deft filed an appln. for fixing the fair rent under Sections 11 & 12, Malabar Tenancy Act. It was contended on behalf of the deft that she will be liable to pay the arrears only at the rates decided as fair rent after the same is fixed under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act. The learned Dist Munsif held that this fixation cannot have retrospective effect & decreed the suit as prayed for.2. The question depends upon the construction of Sections 28 & 32, Malabar Tenancy Act. Section 28 lays down: 'Every cultivating verumpatt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›