Chennai Court November 1951 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.
Ruku-ul-mulk S. Abdul Wazid and ors. Vs. R. Viswanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad261; (1953)IMLJ56
1. These are two appeals against the judgment of our learned brother, Rajagopalan, J., in C. S. No. 214 of 1944 on the Original Side of this Court, holding that the judgment of the Mysore High Court, consisting of Medappa C. J., and Balakrishnaiya and Mallappa JJ., operated as res judicata in this suit regarding the movable properties mentioned therein, subject to proof of pecuniary or other interest of Medappa C. J., in a 'Mercedes' Car, belonging to the estate of the deceased Ramalinga, and proof of his having attempted, in October 1945 and the beginning of 1946, to dissuade Mr. L.S. Raju, Advocate for the plaintiffs, from appearing for the plaintiffs, Ramalinga's sons, and making strong and unwarranted remarks against them, which two facts, if proved, would, in the opinion of our learned Brother, make Medappa C. J., so interested in the subject-matter of the suit or in the parties to the suit as to make him disqualified to be a Judge in the matter, as he would be practically judging...
Vadlamani Kalidas Vs. Fakir Mohammad Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad786; (1952)IMLJ634
Subba Rao, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of J. A. No.169 of 1946, an application filed by the appellant for passing a final decree in his favour. One V. Kama Sastri filed O. S, No. 28 of 1940 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Amalapuram to enforce the mortgage dated 18-3-1913. Defendants 1 to 6 were either the mortgagors or their legal representatives. Defendant 7 was the subsequent purchaser of portion of the hypotheca. Defendants 8 and 9 were the subsequent mortgagees. Defendant 9, one of the puisne mortgagees impleaded in the suit prayed in his written statement for a decree on the foot of his mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 11-3-1943. Defendant 9 paid the amount due to the plaintiff. Having paid the amount, he filed I. A. No. 179 of 1944 for passing a final decree in his favour not only for the amount due under the suit mortgage but also for the amount due under the subsequent mortgage held by him. On 30th March 1944, the learned District Munsif ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›