Chennai Court November 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.
Venukuri Krishna Reddi and anr. Vs. Kota Ramireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad848
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of Panchapakesa Aiyar J, in S. A. No. 2159 of 1945. The suit was for recovery of possession of eight items of immoveable properties on the ground that they belonged to one Buchipudi Kami Reddi and that the plaintiff and defendants l and 2 were entitled to them as his reversioners. The following geneological table will bring out the relationship of the parties as set out in the plaint.RAMMI REDDI=LAKSHMAMMA|||--------------------------------------------------| | Mahalakshmamma= Lakshmi Devamma= V. Krishna Reddi K. Krishna Reddi | | | K. Rami Reddi | (Deft.2) |-----------------------------------------------| |G. Chandra Reddi V.Appi Reddi (Piff.) (Deft.)The plaintiff alleged that after the death of Rami Reddi, his widow and his daughters had effected alienations of the suit properties without any necessity, that those alienations were not binding on the reversioners and that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and delivery of...
Pushavathi Vijayaram Gajapathi Raj Manne Sultan Bahadur, Raja of Vizia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad219
Rajagopalan, J.1. The preliminary decree in this suit defining the shares for the partition of the properties among the heirs of Alak Narayan, was issued on 11-9-1950. There was no dispute either on the question who were the heirs, or on the question, what their shares were. The two sons of Alak Narayan and their mother Rani Vidya-vathi were the heirs and each was entitled to a third of the partible properties of the joint family of which they were members along with Alak Narayan. It would be convenient to refer to the two sons in the rest of this judgment as the plaintiff and defendant 1 and their mother, the second defendant in this suit, will be referred to by her name.2. When the determination of the assets of the joint family available for partition was taken up, a list of 106 items of immoveable properties was filed into court, with reference to which the parties formulated their claims and objections. The figure 106 may be misleading, because sub-items were enumerated under many...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. Krishna Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad585; (1954)IMLJ294
1. This appeal was directed to be posted before a Bench by one of us to consider the correctness of the decision of a single judge of this court in -- 'Ramaliah v. Brahmiah', AIR 1930 Mad 821 (A).2. The question raised is one of limitation, The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in the two courts is the appellant in this second appeal. She filed the suit for a declaration that the alienations made by Kokilambal, the 9th defendant, were not valid and did not bind her. She also sued for possession of the suit properties with future mesne profits and costs.The properties in suit originally belonged to one Doraiswami Reddi. He died in 1929, and the properties devolved on Raghava Reddi, his son by his first wife, and after Raghava Reddi's death they devolved on Sitharama Reddi, a minor son of Doraiswami Reddi by his third wife, Kokilambal (the 9th defendant). The minor was born in 1926. During his minority the 9th defendant, Kokilambal, as his guardian effected two alienations, which are the su...
B. Deivanayagam Pillai Vs. Subbiah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad727; (1954)IMLJ534
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The property which is the subject matter of this litigation is a house in Palamcottah which belonged to one Esakkia Pillai, who died sometime about 1935 leaving behind three brothers Swarnam Pillai, Sambasivam Pillai and Kuppam Pillai. Sambasivam Pillai died in 1938 and his son Subbiah Pillai became entitled to his estate as his heir and Swarnam Pillai died sometime in 1945 and his widow Parvathi Ammal succeeded to his properties as his legal representative.On 11-7-1946 the plaintiff purchased the interest of Subbiah Pillai and Parvathi Animal on the footing that each of them was entitled to a third share in the house. Meantime on 27-5-1946 the first defendant had purchased the house from Kuppam Pillai on the footing that he was solely entitled to it. On the basis of his sale deed dated 11-7-1946 the plaintiff filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for partition and delivery of two thirds share in the house on the ...
Kandiyil Vania Pudukudi Ramunni Kurup and ors. Vs. Panchayat Board, Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad754; (1954)IIMLJ101
1. These are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and raise the question whether the notification, G. O. No. 139 (L. A.) issued by the Government of Madras on 31-1-1952 is valid. That notification is as follows:"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 81, Sub-section (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act 10 of 1950) His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby appoints the Official year 1952-53 as the year after the 'commencement of which, no person shall continue to keep open a private market in any panchayat area within the jurisdiction of a panchayat."The petitioners are owners of private markets in the districts of Malabar, North Arcot, Nellore, Tiru-chirapalli and Visakhapatnam. Some of these markets are stated to have been in existence for more than a century. All of them had been run under annual licences granted under the Madras Local Boards Act, 14 of 1920. The petitioners allege that when they applied for renewal of licenc...
In Re: Jilumudu Venkureddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: (1954)IIMLJ88
1. The only Question in this appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao J. disposing of App. No. 722 of 1947 is whether interest ceased to run on the amount deposited by the 9th defendant (who is the appellant before us) into court on 31-8-1943. He was added as a party to the suit which was on a mortgage. He claimed to have purchased a portion of the hypothecs from defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. But there was a dispute as to the validity of the sale in his favour. The deposit was made by the appellant subject to the condition that the plaintiff should release the property purchased by him from the mortgage. Eventually, in O. S. No. 47 of 1944, the title of the ninth defendant was upheld. But against the decision in that suit there was an appeal to this court, and it was only on 26-7-1949 that the appeal was finally disposed of.2. The question in these circumstances is whe-ther the plaintiff was justified in not accepting the deposit. The learned Judge held that the mortgagee was perfect...
Majeti Ramakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Pulavarti Venkata Subba Rao and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad831a
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the legal representatives of the decree-holder under Order 21 Rules 95, Civil P. C. for delivery of immoveable property which was purchased in court auction by the decree-holder on 28-1-1341, in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 37 of 1937. The sale was confirmed on 7-3-1941. Undoubtedly at the time the decree-holder was alive. It is not known when exactly he died; but the first application, E. A. No. 203 of 1941 (Ex. B. 1) for delivery of possession of the property as per the sale certificate was filed on 21-8-1941. The warrant was returned unexecuted as no one was present to take delivery of possession of the property on behalf of the decree-holder purchaser, and the petition was closed.The second application, E. A. No. 199 of 1943 (Ex. B. 2) was filed on 7-7-1943 for the same relief, and that was struck off on 2-9-1943 as the warrant was returned unexecuted, as the house was under lock and key.The third applica...
Sankari Ammal Vs. Ramachandra Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad861; (1954)IIMLJ569
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother, Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in C. M. A. No. 625 of 1949. The appeal raises an interesting question relating to the applicability of Section 9-A, Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act 4 of 1938) introduced by the amending Act No. 23 of 1948. One Ramachandra Aiyar obtained a usufructuary mortgage from the owner of the property, one Doraiswami Aiyar, under Ex. A.3 dated 15-3-1925 under which an amount of Rs. 3675 was advanced as a loan. The period fixed for redemption of the mortgage was five years. On the same date, there was a lease back, Ex. A. 5, by the mortgagee to the mortgagor of the properties. Under this lease, the mortgagor agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 275 per annum for a period of five years. On 21-7-1927 the mortgagee filed O. S. No. 563 of 1927, District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, for arrears of lease amounts and for recovery of possession of the property as the lessee defaulted in payment of rent.2. The...
Joint Official Liquidators of the Peerdan Juharmal Bank Ltd. Vs. Commr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad858; [1954]24CompCas41(Mad); [1954]25ITR140(Mad)
Rajamannar, C. J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. raises an interesting question of law. It arises in the compulsory winding up of a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, called the Peerdan Juhurmal Bank Ltd. The order for winding up was passed on 12-9-1949. On 5-10-1943, a demand under Section 18-A, Indian Income-tax Act, was made on the Bank. The question is whether in the winding up, the State is entitled to preferential payment of the amount of this demand under Section 230, Indian Companies Act. The learned Judge, Krishnaswami Nayudu J. held that the State was entitled to the priority claimed. The Joint Official Liquidators of the Bank are the appellants.2. under Section 230 (1) (a) the State is entitled to be paid in priority to all other debts, all revenue, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company at the date specified in Sub-section (5) of Section 230 and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date...
Pollapalli Venkatarama Rao and ors. Vs. Musunuru Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad788; (1954)IIMLJ161
Rajamannar, C.J.4. These revision petitions came up for hearing in the first instance before a Division Bench consisting of Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. and they considered it was desirable that one of the questions involved in the petitions, namely, the construction and applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act should be decided by a Full Bench.5. The facts necessary for the disposal of this reference are as follows: The plaintiffs are the proprietors of a village called Bommaluru in the Krishna district. They filed suits against the tenants in possession of holdings in the village for an injunction restraining them from removing thepaddy heaps standing on the suit lands until a due division was made of the crop and until the rent in kind payable to the plaintiffs be paid by the tenants-defendants, for effecting a division of the paddy heaps, or in the alternative for payment of the value of the plaintiffs' shares of the crop. The sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »