Chennai Court January 1953 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.
Geddam Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Balantrapu Satyanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad948; (1953)IIMLJ85
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The Judgment-debtors in a mortgage decree in O. S. No. 70 of 1939, Sub Court, Amalapuram, are the appellants. The appeal is against the order dismissing the judgment-debtor's application to determine the amounts due by them under the decree and to order restitution of such amount as might have been overpaid by them to the decree-holder in the course of the execution of the decree.2. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed by the High Court in App. No. 205 of 1942 on 13-7-1944. The decree directed the judgment-debtors to pay on or before 13-10-1944 or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the Court a sum of Rs. 9892-12-9 with further interest on Rs. 5852-3-0 at 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment. The other clauses of the decree are in conformity with form No. 5 of Appendix D, Schedule I, Civil P. C., (the form usually employed for a preliminary mortgage decree for sale). Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the de...
Sidda Setty Vs. Muniamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1951Mad0
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The husband in a suit by the-second wife for separate residence and maintenance is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous; appeal. He had already married one Pattarnmall as his first wife. There were disputes between, him and his first wife. The first wife obtained a decree for maintenance against the defendant. Subsequently, there was a rapprochement between, the first wife and the defendant and the first wife came and joined her husband, while the plaintiff was living with him. The plaintiff's, case is that the defendant joined his first wife-Pattammal and drove her out of the house after' treating her cruelly and removing the jewels from her and this incident happened on the-Sivarathri day in 1944, and that she was threatened that she would be beaten if she came and joined. The defendant denied any cruel treatment or refusal to maintain the plaintiff and stated that the suit was instituted as he-had patched up his differences with his first wife and she h...
Ayeasha Bi Vs. Peerkhan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad741
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This criminal revision case has been filed against the order of discharge made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cheyyar In C. C. No. 493 of 1951 and which was refused to be interfered with by the District Magistrate of Vellore in C. R. P. No. 5 of 1952.2. The facts are: C. C. No. 1647 of 1951 was filed before the Sub-Magistrate, Polur, for offences under Sections 324 and 323, Penal Code, by Ayesha Bee, wife of Kasim Saheb, Chinnapushpagirt village, Polur Taluk, against Peerkhan sahib, Pathima Bee and Chote Bee, all residing in Chinnapushpagiri village, Polur Taluk. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of that case. So far as the present case is concerned, what happened was this. On this Ayesha Bee, the complainant, being examined as a prosecution witness, the accused who were defended by Mr. V. M. Sundaresa Aiyar, Advocate, Vellore put questions to this witness containing 'per se' defamatory imputations to the following effects viz.,(a) that ...
Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Thangavel Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad977; (1953)1MLJ699
Subba Rao, J.1. The second appeal raises a question of the interpretation of Section 2, Hindu Widows Remarriage Act (15 of 1856), hereafter called the Act, and its application to the facts of the case. The facts are simple & are not in dispute. They may be briefly stated. One Mookan Asari, the elder brother of the plaintiff and the first husband of the defendant died. Alter his death, the plaintiff Instituted O.S. No. 239 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram claiming that the properties were joint family properties and that he was entitled to the same by survivorship. The defendant contended that the properties were the separate properties of Mookan Assari and that she succeeded to the same as his widow. The suit was ultimately compromised and Ex. A. 6 dated 11-6-1945 was the compromise decree made therein. Under the compromise decree, the properties described in Schedule 1 annexed to that decree were given absolutely to the plaintiff and the properti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›