Chennai Court March 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.
The Province of Madras, Represented by Dist. Collector, Ramanathapuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad409; (1953)2MLJ719
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This is an interesting case where the State of Madras has appealed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Devakoltai, in E. P. No. 169 of 1949, in O. S. No. 94 of 1946, dismissing the execution petition filed by the Government for attaching the defendants' moveables on the ground that the Government was not a party to the decree and could not execute it, and that, even if it was entitled to execute it, it could not be allowed to do so, under Section 11 of the Cour-fees Act, till the additional court fee of Rs. 1552-7-0 due on the amount decreed to the plaintiff under the compromise decree was paid. The respondents in this civil miscellaneous appeal (the defendants-judgment-debtors) are all absent and have not been represented by counsel. So, the learned Government Pleader has been left to argue the intriguing point of law involved alone, without opposition or rival. Still, as it is the court's duty to consider, even in such coses, whether the ap...
Minor Gurusami Through His Mother and Next Friend Valliammai Ammal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad477
Govinda Menon, J.1. The facts of this case have been very elaborately stated in the judgment of Rajagopalan J. and it is unnecessary for us to refer to them at all. The only question that arises for consideration is a question of 'res judicata' decided against the appellant by the learned Judge. As we understand the learned Judge, the inclusion of Section No. 315/6 in the D schedule should be deemed to be a definite claim for recovery of possession of that property and even though there was a specific reservation that the plaintiff would file a separate suit against the first defendant to recover possession of S. No. 315/6 still title to this property might and ought to have been agitated in O. S. No. 228 of 1937 and as such the plaintiff is debarred by Explanation IV to Section 11 C. P. C. In our opinion it is difficult to hold that there had been a claim made for the recovery of this property.When, in one and the same pleadings, in one part of it, a claim is made and in another part ...
S. Pl. P. Narayana Chettiar Vs. M. Ar. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad914; (1953)2MLJ174
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a petition under Section 19 (2), Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for scaling down the decree debt. On 9-3-1951 we passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff who had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,645-8-0 with subsequent interest. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. On 20-10-1949 we delivered a judgment in the appeal against that decree holding that the plaintiff was the validly adopted son of M.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and that the suit was not barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents contended that his clients would not be liable for the suit amount as their father Palaniappa Chettiar became a partner of P. L. S. firm subsequent to the deposit. To enable us to decide the points raised we called for a finding from the learned Subordinate Judge on the following question:'When did Palaniappa Chettiar, the father of the defendant became a partner of P...
Vanukuri Danda Reddi Vs. Vajrala Ramireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad908; (1953)1MLJ851
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The short point for determination in this civil revision petition is whether theorder of the District Munsif of Guntur in I. A.No. 71 of 1950 in S. C. No. 1566 of 1929, an application under Section 19 of Madras Act 4 of 1938,is appealable under Section 25A of the said Act) ashas been held by the learned SubordinateJudge of Guntur against the contentions ofthe learned advocate for the respondent in thelower Court that no appeal lay in such casesinasmuch as the scaling down was of a decreepassed by the Small Cause Court and that anydecree made by the Small Cause Court is onlyrevisable by the High Court and cannot beappealed against to the Court having appellatejurisdiction ordinarily. The point is concludedby authority, see A. A. O. No. 222 of 1945(Mad) (A), wherein Wadsworth J. held thatagainst the orders of a Court of Small Cause'sappeals are excluded by the provisions of Section27, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Therefore the order of the lower appellate Court...
Gubbala Suryanarayana (Minor) and anr. Vs. Gadiyapu Ganesulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad203; (1953)2MLJ439
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in A. S. No. 207 of 1947 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Feddapuram in O. S. No. 232 of 1946.2. The facts are: The plaintiffs, sons of oneSitaramaswami, sued for possession of S. No. 28/12,eastern portion 24 cents in extent, and recoveryof Rs. 30 towards past mesne profits on the goodof the following allegations:On 22-9-1937 and 7-1-1938 Sitaramaswami executed two promissory notes to defendant 2, K. Venkataratnam. On 7-3-1939 defendant 2 filed S. C. No. 99 of 1939 against Sitaramaswami to recover the amount due under the said promissory notes. During the pendency of this suit on 26-4-1939 the minor plaintiffs, sons of Sitaramaswami filed a suit for partition against Sitaramaswami in O. S. No. 102 of 1939. On 17-8-1939 S. C. No. 99 Of 1939 was decreed. On 20-11-1939 the suit property was at-tached in execution. On 22-4-1940 a ...
Gola Narasimhalu Vs. Kodi Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad932; (1953)2MLJ279
ORDERVenkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the decision of the Election Commissioner in O. P. No. 32 of 1952. The facts are not in dispute. On 16-9-1952 elections were held for the Municipal Council, Nandyal The petitioner and respondent 1 herein and two other candidates contested the seat for ward No 12. The petitioner got 280 votes, respondent 1st 240 votes and the other two candidates far less and accordingly, the petitioner wag duly declared elected. Thereupon, respondent 1 filed O. P. No. 32 of 1952 before the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool who is the Election Commissioner under the Act for setting aside the election on various grounds We are concerned in this petition with only one of them, that the polling officer entered on the ballot papers 'the names of the electors and their serial number in the electoral list. Rule 27-A(1)(a) of the Election Rules is as follows: 'A ballot paper shall be rejected if it bears anymark by wh...
Rahima Bi and ors. Vs. Vellore Municipal Council, Represented by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad495
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises an interesting question, namely, whether lands vested by Government in a municipality or other local authority will continue to be in the ownership of the Government or will be, like lands assigned by Government to private persons, in the ownership of the municipality or local authority, and whether the rules of prescription regarding the easements, ownership etc. claimed over such lands by private persons will be toe rules applicable to Government or only those applicable to the municipality and local authority, and whether in a suit, brought against the municipality for an injunction restraining them from putting up a wall on such land, vested in them, on the ground that it is affecting the rights of the plaintiffs (private parties) to light, air, access etc., the Government is a proper and necessary party and can be directed to be added under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C., as held by the lower appellate court.2. The facts ar...
illuru Hanumanthiah Vs. Umnabad Thimmaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad87; (1953)2MLJ310
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Two points are raised by Mr. Kothandaramiah, learned counsel for the appellant In these two second appeals. These second appeals arise out of two suite filed by the appellant for recovery of damages in respect of two contracts under which the deceased father of defendants 1 to 6 agreed to supply bags of groundnut seeds. The contracts were entered into on 18-8-1945 and 19-9-1945. The delivery in respect of these two contracts was to be made in December 1945 and in December 1945 or January 1946 respectively. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suits mainly on the ground that the suit contracts are void as being in contravention of the provisions of 'the Oil Seeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1943'.2. Learned counsel wanted to escape the provisions of this Order by contending that they would not apply to these cases on two grounds. One was that the contracts in these cases were not forward contracts within the meaning of the definition of the term in Clau...
Palagani Balarami Reddy Vs. Shaik Masthan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad968; (1953)2MLJ276
Govinda Menon, J.1.There is no dispute that the wakf in question relates to property worth more than Rs. 50,000 as the same has been conceded by both the parties. But the question that has been decided in the second appeal is with respect to the trusteeship of the Mobideenia mosque in the village of Dama-ramadugu, Kovur taluk, Nellore district. We have found that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to the trusteeship and the subject matter of the appeal to the Supreme Court is whether the plaintiff has the right to function as such. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation and as such para (1) of Section 110, Civil P. C. and Clause (I) (a) of Article 133 of the Constitution cannot, in strict terms, apply. But what is contended for the petitioner is that in the plaint the relief asked for includes, in addition to the prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff is a validly appointed trustee of the Moheedeenia mosque and that the...
Roddam Bhagyalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Sriram Kamalamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: (1953)2MLJ249
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is rather an interesting case raising the question of the applicability of Section 92, Evidence Act, in a peculiar set of circumstances which so far as I know has not come up for decision before this High Court till now.2. One Kamalamina, plaintiff 1 In O. S. No. 124 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif, Beliary, owned the suit house. Defendant 1 Bhagya-lakshmamma, related to her closely, wanted to buy that house. Kamalamnia's husband is a Sub-Inspector of Police called Anantha Setty. He has been impleacled as plaintiff 2 in the suit later on. As is usual in India, Kamalamma acted through her husband Anantha Setty, and Bhagyalakshm-amma acted through her husband, Satyanarayana. Gupta. These two men entered into an agreement Ex. A. 1, dated 10-1-48, under which defendant 2 obviously on behalf of defendant l agreed to purchase the suit house from plaintiff 1 for Rs. 2625 and paid Rs. 350 as advance at once, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 2275 to be paid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »