Chennai Court October 1952 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.
Chukkapalli Venkateswarlu Vs. Kanyadhara Challaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad551; (1953)IMLJ167
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, sued in forma pauperis to recover the suit properties, which consisted of 23 items of lands and two houses belonging to one Chukapalli Pichayya as his adopted son having been adopted by his widow defendant 20 (Achamma). Chukkapalli Pichayya died about 80 years prior to the suit leaving defendant 20 a childless widow. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sister's sons of Pichayya. The widow, defendant 20, purported to adopt P.W. 5, but that adoption was subsequently set aside by Court. On 25-2-1940 she obtained an authorisation from two of the reversioners to adopt a son to her husband. But before any actual adoption took place, the widow surrendered her husband's estate in favour of defendants' 1 and 2, the nearest reversioners. On 28-2-1940 under Ex. A. 2 the widow and Pichamma, the sister of the deceased Pichayya and mother of defendants 1 and 2 jointly executed a deed of surrender in favour of defendants 1 and 2 conveying all the ...
Balarama Reddi Vs. Subbarama Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad360; (1953)IMLJ40
1. These two petitions raise an interesting point of limitation law for determination in connection with orders passed under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C.2. The petitioner was a defendant in two suits. The first was by his wife's brother O.S. No. 319 of 1947 for recovery of mesne profits. This was decreed 'ex parte' on 9-1-1948. He filed an application to set the decree aside on 23-1-1948. On this an order was passed on 19-1-1949 directing the decree to be set aside on certain conditions; that Rs. 25 was to be paid by 7-2-1949 and in default the application was to be dismissed. The petition was called on 8-2-1949 and the Court passed a further order 'Costs not paid. Dismissed.' The petitioner appealed against this order to the District Judge, who on payment of Rs. 41 by the petitioner to the respondent directed the 'ex parte' decree to be set aside. In C.R.P. No. 1843 of 1949 filed by the plaintiff in that suit against that order, Balakrishna Aiyar J. set aside the order of the Distric...
Kalavagunta Sriramarao Vs. Kalavagunta Suryanarayanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad340; (1953)IMLJ542
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question as to whether the Registrar functioning under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act is a civil court within the meaning of that expression in Section 25, Madras Debt Conciliation Act 11 of 1936. The facts are not in dispute. The first plaintiff is the father and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendant 3 are his sons and they are the members of a joint undivided Hindu family. The first plaintiff became indebted to the Co-operative Society of Kalavagunta and on the application of the Society an award was passed against the first plaintiff by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Vijayawada, Award No. 1011 of 1933. In execution of the said award the suit properties were attached in E. P. No. 503 of 1940-41 on his file and the sale was fixed for 29-4-1942. On 27-4-1942 the first plaintiff filed a petition under Section 4, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, D.C. E. No. 6 of 1942 on the file of the Debt Conciliation Board...
Kondavitti Brahmayya and ors. Vs. Rajeswaraswami Temple, Situate at Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad580; (1953)IMLJ164
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal arises out of O. S. No. 178 of 1949, a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent 1, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. The plaintiff, defendant 27 and one Nagayya are the trustees of the temple of Sri Rajeswaraswami of Ponnekallu. Defendants 1 to 7 are the archakas of the suit temple and defendants 8 to 26 are the lessees under defendants 1 to 7. The plaintiff alleging that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of the deity, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of possession. Defendants 1 to 7 denied that the properties are the properties of the deity and claimed that the suit lands were granted to the archakas burdened with service to the deity. They also claimed that they acquired a right by adverse possession. As many as seven issues were framed in the suit and they reflect the contentions of the parties. They are,1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit lands2. Whether the defendants acquire...
Arankandath Sankaran Nair and anr. Vs. A. Doraiswamy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad478; (1953)IMLJ27
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the splints and veneers can be attached under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The facts are simple and may be briefly narrated. The respondent instituted' O. S. No. 3 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for possession of match factory and for mesne profits. After obtaining a decree therein, he took possession of the factory and applied for ascertainment of mesne profits. He also applied for attachment before judgment of splints and veneers owned by defendant 1. It was contended, 'inter alia' that the said articles were not liable to attachment on the ground that defendant 1 had no disposing power over the said articles. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the contention and directed the attachment of the said articles. The defendants have preferred the above appeal.2. Mr. Variar the learned counsel for the appellants raised before us the point which his clients had unsuccessfully raised in t...
Mylasu Gopalarao Vs. Chitta Seetharamiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad582; (1953)IMLJ250
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. A small cause suit filed in the District Munsif's Court of Eluru was transferred by an order of this Court, to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Eluru for disposal along with two other suits. In the suit out of which this revision arises there was a decision rendered by the transferee Court, the sub-Court at Eluru, against which the defendant has filed this revision petition.2. Mr. Ch. Sankara Sastri, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that against the decision of the Subordinate Judge an appeal would lie to the District Court. So, says counsel, this revision is incompetent. In other words, learned counsel says that the decision pronounced by the Subordinate Judge must be regarded as a decision in the exercise of his original jurisdiction and not a decision in the exercise of small cause jurisdiction. It is pointed out by Mr. Sankara Sastri that in fact...
R. Pushpam and anr. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad392; (1953)IMLJ88
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, of certiorari to call for the records and quash, the order dated 29-7-1952 of respondent 1, the Stale of Madras. Petitioner 1 is the Secretary of the Progressive Women's Association, Aruppukottai; petitioner 2 is a Municipal Councillor of the Aruppukottai municipality. The elections to the said Council are now in progress. Under the programme of elections issued by respondent 2, Commissioner of the Municipality, the last date to file nominations is the 6th and 8th September 1952 and the date of this polling is fixed, on 6-10-1952. The Municipality is divided into 24 wards with 33 councillors; one reserved seat for women is allotted to ward No. 2 and another to ward No. 12. The said allotment was made by the order of the Government dated 29-7-1952. The petitioners seek to get that order quashed for the reasons 'inter alia' that it is vitiated by 'mala fides' on the part of the ...
Yelchuri Ranganayakalu Chetty and anr. Vs. K. Gopala Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad439; (1953)IMLJ525
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for stay of trial of C.C. No. 8277 of 1952 on the file of the 8th Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, pending disposal of C. S. No. 158 of 1952 on the file of the High Court oh the original side. 2. The facts are: The two petitioners before us Y. Ranganayakalu Chetty and Doraisami Ay y an gar constituted a partnership along with the respondent K. Gopala Chetty & K. Lakshminarayana Chetty and K. Satyanarayana Chetty under the style and name of Sri C. P. V. Kotiah Chetty and Company, carrying on business as commission agents in pulses, coriander, chillies, etc. at No. 21, Chinnathambi Mudali Street, George Town, Madras. The partnership agreement is dated 25-7-1951. It provides that each of these petitioners is to contribute Rs. 25,000/- and the partners were to share the profits in the following proportion: the first petitioner 0-5-9, the second petitioner 0-5-3, the complainant 0-3-0, Lakshminarayana Chetty 0-4-0 and Satyanarayana 0-2-...
In Re: Ambujam Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad326; (1953)IIMLJ50
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a Criminal Revision Case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned District Magistrate of Tirunelveli in C. C. No. 249 of 1951 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli in C. A. No. 51 of 1952.2. The short facts are : On information received, from P. W. 5, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town (P. W. 7) arranged for a raid of the premises bearing door No. 41, Kanagaraya Mudukku Street, Tirunelveli Town, which was said to be run as a brothel by the accused in this case, on the night of 15-11-1951. The Circle Inspector (P. W. 7) was said to have been accompanied by the Sub-Inspector, Tirunelveli Town, and two Search witnesses, of whom P. W. 4 the village Munsif is one and another a Constable. On reaching the southern end of Kanagaraya Mudukku Street P. W. 7 is said to have met P. W. 2, the trap witness in this case.This witness was asked by the Circle Inspector to go to the house of the accused and have sexual congr...
D.V. Sanjeevi Naidu Vs. M.N. Chittibabu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad473; (1953)IMLJ260
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of further proceedings in C. S. No. 115 of 1947 the main appeal (O. S. A. No. 102 of 1949) from which we have just disposed of. As already mentioned, in this suit Sanjeevi claimed not only possession but also mesne profits, and Rajagopalan J. directed that mesne profits should be ascertained by the Official Referee in proceedings subsequent to the decree. The Official Referee accordingly ascertained the mesne profits and his report came up for consideration before Rajagopalan J. who accepted the figures arrived at by the Official Referee and granted a decree to Sanjeevi for mesne profits on that basis by his order dated 2-11-1950. O. S. A. No. 133 of 1950 is by Chittibabu against the order. The main ground of appeal is that he is not liable in mesne profits as he must be deemed to be a tenant.2. Sanjeevi filed an execution petition, E. P. No. 34 of 1950 for delivery of possession. Chittibabu raised the objection that notwithstanding the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »