Chennai Court December 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.
Ganesa Naicken Vs. Arumugha Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad811; (1954)IIMLJ35
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the property described in the plaint schedule consisting of a site in Rayappapuram in the town of Tiruppur and the superstructure thereon.The case of the respondent as set out in the plaint was that in the year 1925 he had submitted a petition to the Government to obtain a sale of a vacant site in Hemingway Street in Tiruppur and that while that petition was pending he came to know that vacant sites would foe granted by Government on dharkhast in Rayappapuram and, apprehending that if he put in an application for one of such vacant sites he might not be granted any site, because he had already applied for a site in Hemingway Street, he made the appellant, who was a son of his sister and also his brother-in-law apply for a site in Rayappapuram, that eventually a site was granted on dharkhast to the appellant in December 1931, that subsequently he sunk a well and constructed a house with hi...
Ettapparambath Atiyandi Pakkirichi Umma Vs. Kaiprath Kalandan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad702
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected civil revision petition and civil miscellaneous second appeal arising from the decrees and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Malabar in A. S. Nos. 65 and 64 of 1949 respectively.2. The facts are: The suit property which is a paddy field and was taken on lease by the defendants' deceased father Baduvan Haji under a kychit dated 27-2-1912 for a yearly rent of 200 seers of paddy and sundries worth Rs. 1-8-0. After Baduvan Haji's death fresh documents were executed in the form of a kanam demise with a kanam of Rs. 2 and a period of 8 years. Underthe kanam deed the rent was the same rent of 200 seers. A kanam deed and a kanam marupat were executed and the marupat was handed over to the plaintiff. But neither document was registered. On the strength of the unregistered kanam, marupat executed by the two defendants sons of Baduvan Haji, the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 589 of 1947 to recover arrears of rent for four years amounting to Rs. 302...
Sitharama Holla (Died) and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Somayaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad729; (1954)IMLJ582
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1.This second appeal arises in a suit instituted for recovery of unpaid purchase money, the right to recover it having been purchased by the plaintiff. The defendant claims to be the owner of the property under sale deed Ex. B. 2 dated 12-1-1940. A sum of Rs. 745-7-11 was retained with the purchaser one Mavji Shet under a sale deed Ex. A. 22 dated 26-7-1926 of three items of properties executed by one Subramania Holla. Subramania Holla had earlier mortgaged one of the three items of properties sold under Ex. A. 22 along with other properties to one Seetharama Bhatta under the mortgage deed dated. 30-10-1922. Seetharama Bhatta died and his sons instituted a suit on the mortgage, O. S. No. 132. of 1935. By the time the suit was instituted, the three items of properties together with the sum of Rs. 745-7-11, which was retained for payment of the mortgage, passed into the hands of one Vasudeva Thunga, who was made a party to the mortgage suit. Lakshminarayana Shastry...
Karnatak Vegetable Oils and Refineries Ltd. Vs. Madras Industrial Inve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad582; [1954]24CompCas249(Mad); (1954)IIMLJ467
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. directing the winding up of a company called the Karnataka Vegetable Oils and Refineries Ltd.The company is the appellant. It was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as a public limited company. Its authorised capital is Rs. 20 lakhs, out of which a capital of Rs. 10,13,519, was paid up. The registered office of the company is at Hagari Bommanahalli, Bellary district. The respondent who was the petitioning creditor is the Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.The company borrowed from the respondent a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 and secured the said sum by a mortgage dated 24-10-1950. The hypothecs included lands situated at Hospet in the Bellary district and the engines, machinery, plant and factories belonging to the company and which might be erected at any time during the continuance of the mortgage.The principal amount was repayable in 16 equal annual instalments, the first of such instalments to b...
V. Venkatanarayana Rao Vs. Champalal Savansukha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad896
1. The appellant executed on 20-4-1936 in favour of the respondent a deed of simple mortgage for a sum of Rs. 99,999. The properties secured under the mortgage included houses in the city and lands in the district of Krishna. He executed a second mortgage in favour of his mother, V. Sundaramma for Rs. 1,60,000 on 3-11-1936. She, as puisne mortgagee filed an application on the Original Side of this Court (No. 827 of 1949) to scale down the debt due to the respondent. On that application, Krishnaswami Nayudu J. made an order directing the matter to be enquired into by the Official Referee, after holding that V. Sundaramma was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order, O. Section A. No. 119 of 1950. Meanwhile, the respondent filed a petition O. P. No. 139 of 1949, on the original side, under Section 69-A. T. P. Act, 'inter alia' to restrain the appellant from collecting the rents of some of the...
Parukutti Amma and ors. Vs. C. Balameenakshi Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad818
Satyanakayana Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat, dismissing their application, I. A. No. 560 of 1949, for scaling down the debt in O. Section No. 53 of 1945.2. On 14-7-1933 an usufructuary mortgage was executed by the Tavazhi of the plaintiffs, which was a branch of Manavaahi tarwad, for a sum of Rs. 16000, in favour of the first defendant in the suit, who is the first respondent in this appeal. The mortgage itself seems to be in renewal of certain earlier debts, the details of which are not relevant for this appeal. Contemporaneously with the mortgage there was a lease back of the mortgage property to the mortgagors for a rent of Rs. 1150 per year. A 3/5th share in the equity of redemption on the hypotheca eventually devolved on the 2nd defendant, who is no other than the daughter of the first defendant. On 11-9-1936 the mortgagors surrendered possession of the properties to the first defendant, the mortgagee, a...
Munuswami Goundar Vs. Mottayya Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad853; (1954)IIMLJ146
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District judge in O. P. No. 4 of 1950, which was filed for leave to sue 'in forma pauperis'. The suit was for partition and separate possession of a half share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties. The application for, leave to sue 'in forma pauperis' which complied with the retirements of Rule 2 of Order 33, that it should contain the particulars in regard to plaints in suits, was filed in the District Munsif's Court, Trikoilur in the first instance. In that court there was an enquiry regarding the pauperism of the plaintiff, and permission was granted to sue 'in forma pauparis'. Thereafter, written statements were filed and issues were framed. But the question regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, which was raised at the instance of the defendants, was tried as a preliminary issue. The Court held that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed a return of the plaint at 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›