Chennai Court March 1953 Judgments
M.L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.L.S.P. Alias Sm. P.L. Mala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad177; (1953)2MLJ446
1. In O. S. No. 1 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakotta a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 30263-3-0 with interest and proportionate costs. There was a further provision that the plaintiffs do execute a registered release deed in accordance with an agreement marked in the case as Ex. A and that the decree be executed only after the execution of the release deed. The result of ihis provision was that the plaintiffs did not have the unregistered right of executing the decree before complying with the provision for execution of the release deed. The present appellants are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff whose application for executing the decree has been dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation.2. A few dates have to be mentioned in order to correctly understand the relevancy of the legal arguments. The trial court passed the decree on 24-8-1937 and on appeal therefrom the original decree was confirmed on 17-4-1941. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Sambandhan Vs. Election Tribunal, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad231; (1953)2MLJ483
1. These petitions arise out of proceedings taken for setting aside the election of members to the Madras Legislative Council by the members of the State Legislative Assembly, at an election held on 27-3-1953. On 4-3-1953 the Governor of Madras issued a notification under Section 18(1)(b), Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the Act calling upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to elect 24 members to the Legislative Council. The last date fix-ed for nomination was 13th March; for scrutiny of the nomination paper 14th March; and for polling 27th March. One Sri U. C. Subramania Bhatt who is the respondent in W. P. No. 72 of 1953 presented his nomination paper on the 12th March and along with it he filed a printed copy of Block No. 15 of the electoral roll for the Mangalore City Constituency wherein his name is entered as a voter, the serial number being 26. On 14-3-1952 the Returning Officer passed the following order on the nomination paper:"T...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Rayulu Iyer Nagasami Iyer and Co. Through One of Its Partners N.M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad237; (1953)IIMLJ489
Govinda Menon, J.1. In our opinion this appeal has to be allowed and E. P. No. 88 of 1947 remanded to the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga for disposal on the merits. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the execution is barred on the ground that more than twelve years have elapsed from 14-8-1934 when this Court allowed A. S. No. 406 of 1930, and such being the case E P. No. 88 of 1947 is barred under Section 48, Civil P. C.2. What happened was that for the restitution of costs realised by a decree-holder in O. S. No. 114 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai one Sattayyappa Chettiar executed a security bond in favour of the Court. In that security bond Sattayappa Chettiar stated that he himself personally and the joint family properties belonging to him and his two sons would be made liable in case the decision in A. S. No. 406 of 1930 went against the persons on whose behalf the security bond was executed. On 14-8-1934, this Court in A. S. No. 406 of 1930 allowed the app...
Tag this Judgment!B. Matha Gowder Vs. M.S. Kada Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad81; (1953)2MLJ421
1.This appeal arises out of an application for execution of the decree in O. S. No. 16 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund by arrest of the judgment-debtor. The decree was passed in August 1947 and it is stated that the decree-holder has not been able to realise any appreciable sum towards the decree amount. The learned Subordinate Judge finds that the judgment-debtor has the means to pay the decree amount and is therefore liable to be arrested.2. The question that has been argued relates to the correct interpretation to be put upon clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51, Civil P. C. added by means of Section 2. Civil P. O. (Amendment) Act of 1936 (21 of 1936). As it originally stood before the amendment, Section 51 of the Code which was introduced for the first time in 1908 contained only the following provisions:"Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Movva Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Movva Krishna Prasadam Minor by Padyala M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad227; (1953)2MLJ561
1. This revision has been referred by Basheer Ahmed sayeed J., for the decision of a Bench as it raises a question of considerable importance under the Hindu women's Rights to Property Act, 18 of 1937. The facts are simple. One Nagiah and his three sons Subba Rao, Sitaramayya ana Sri Krishnaiah were memoers of a joint undivided Hindu family. On 22-5-1945, Sri Krish-naiah died leaving behind a widow Ramaba-namma und a daughter Krisnna Prasadam pos-tnumously born. On 17-11-1950, Ramabanamma instituted a suit under the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for partition of her husband's one-fourth share in the joint family properties which were set out in schedules B and C to the plaint and also for maintenance past and future at Rs. 250 per annum. That was O. S. No. 274 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the surviving brothers of the deceased Sri Krishniah and the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Garimella Mallikharjuna Rao Vs. Mangipudi Tripura Sundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad975; (1953)2MLJ313
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent in the court of the District Munsif of Amalapuram to recover a sum of Rs. 1072-5-3 being the amount due for principal and interest on a promissory note executed by the appellant defendant in. his favour on 6-4-1945. Admittedly, this promissory note was in respect of the amount of principal and interest due under a prior promissory note dated 8-4-1942 which again was for the amount due under a still prior promissory note of 1939. The origin of the defendant's liability in fact can be traced to the-first promissory note of 30-4-1936. Though by the date of the suit promissory note the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act had come into operation, the amount for which the promissory note was executed represented the amount due under the prior promissory note for principal and interest without taking into account the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, which it is common ground applies to the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Chand Dhanaraj Vs. P. Anandan, Proprietor, Sri Sai Baba's Textil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad11; (1953)2MLJ283
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Cannanore in O. S. No. 331 of 1949.2. P. Anandan, proprietor, Sri Sai Eaba's Textiles, Cannanore entered into an agreement with Messrs. Gulab Chand Dhanraj, cloth merchants and commission agents, 12 Narmal Lohia Lane, Calcutta in regard to the supply of textile goods by the forner who was a manufacturer to the latter who were customers. The agreement between them contained an important covenant namely para. 7 of Ex. A. 1, the orders are accepted by the manufacturers at their office at Cannanore and the payments are all to be made at Cannanore and the cause of action in all these cases will arise only at Cannanore. In these circumstances in regard to a certain transaction namely a contract which was entered into by the agent of the plaintiff at Calcutta and which was subsequently confirmed by the principal at Cannanore a suit was filed by the defendants in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Gomathi Ammal Vs. V.S.M. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad126; (1953)IIMLJ303
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing her suit, reversing the decree granted in her favour by the learned District Munsif. The suit was for a declaration that the othi deed Ex. A. 5 dated 10-2-1945 (of which Ex.B, 5 is the original) executed by the power-of-attorney agent of Sankararamier defendant 3 in favour of his brother defendant 1 does not affect the plaintiff's rights to the suit properties under the saledeed in her favour and for recovery of possession of the same with profits. The plaint schedule properties, it is not disputed, originally belonged to defendant 3. Under a sale deed dated 17-2-1945 Ex. A. 1 the property was conveyed by defendant 3 to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1350 of which, the consideration was fully paid. In the document, defendant 3 assured the plaintiff that the property was free from encumbrances and that he held the property absolutely. As the plaintiff was obstructed,...
Tag this Judgment!Bondalapati Thatayya Vs. Gollapudi Basavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad956
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The above two petitions arise out of an order passed by the Addil. First Class Magistrate Masulipatam, under Section 144, Criminal P. C. On a petition filed on 2-7-1952 by one Bondalapati Thatayya against one Gollapudi Basavayya and 13 others an order was passed under Section 144, Clause (2), Criminal P C. by the Additional First Class Magistrate on 7-7-1952. Before 7-7-1952 the Additional First Class Magistrate called for a report from the police on the petition filed by the said Thatayya. Before the report was sent, the Court was again moved by the said Thatayya for an emergent ex parte order. It was then the ex parte order was passed on 7-7-1952 restraining the respondents in that petition, who are also respondents here (in Cr. R. C. No 195 of 1953) from interfering with the bodi through which the petitioners were said to have been taking water to their lands. The respondents thereupon presented a petition to rescind that order on 17-7-1952. While that petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank, Through Its Secretary Vs. O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad12; (1953)2MLJ359
1. In this appeal a point of significance on which there is divergence in the views expressed in judicial pronouncements has to be considered, and as the matter relates to the jurisdiction of courts we shall discuss it with some fulness of detail.2. The appellant before us is the Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent is the Official Receiver of Ramnad district. The contest is between an official on the one side and a quasi-Government department on the other. One Syed Mohamed Rowther was adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 1 of 1947 on the file of the District Court of Ramnad and all his estates became vested in the Official Receiver of Ramnad. The insolvent was the president of a certain Co-operative Society as well as a director of the Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank. The Co-operative Society was a debtor to the Co-operative. Bank in a large sum of money and the insolvent executed a security bond to the bank for that sum. The bank later on applied to th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »