Chennai Court April 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.
Dominion of India and anr. Vs. Nagardas and Co., Represented by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad235; (1954)IMLJ666
Mack, J.1. Appellant is the Dominion of India and H. E. H. the Nizam of Hyderabad represented by the General Manager of the N. S. Railway, Secunderabad. The appeal is against a remand by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada reversing a finding of the District Munsif that a suit filed by Nagardas and Co., merchants of Vijayawada, claiming Rs. 669 as damages in respect of dhoties lost in transit was time-barred. The suit was remanded for fresh disposal on the other Issues.2. The relevant facts are these: Two bales of dhoties Nos. 9588 and 9589 were consigned to Vijayawada on 18-3-1945 from Ahmedabad to the plaintiff firm. Delivery was to be effected to the plaintiff at Vijayawada, the delivery station being on the Nizam's State Railway. The booking station, i.e., Ahmedabad was on the B. B. and C. I. Railway. There is no dispute as regards one bale No. 9589 which was delivered to the plaintiff intact. The other bale No. 9588 arrived at Vijayawada in a damaged condition. The plain...
Aravala Chinapapinaidu and ors. Vs. Imperial Bank of India, Vizianagar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad273
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellants before us were the defendants-judgment debtors in O. S. No. 55 of 1931 on the file of the Sub Court of Berhampore. On a number of bills for discount as well as demand promissory notes executed by some of the defendants in favour of others and which were discounted with the Imperial Bank of India, O. S. No. 55 of 1931 was brought for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11089-12-0 with interest and costs, etc., against sixteen defendants. The monies due to the bank under these bills and promissory notes were secured by means of a mortgage bond dated 9-1-1931 and hence the plaintiff i. e., the Bank, brought the suit for recovery of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The preliminary decree dated 24-9-1932 was confirmed by a final decree dated 24-11-1936 and thereafter the decreeholder Bank assigned the decree in favour of the second counter petitioner in the court below whose estate is now being managed by respondents 4 and 5 as receivers appointed by...
K.R. Srinivasa Ayyar and ors. Vs. T.A. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad367; (1953)1MLJ680
Chandra Reddi, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous second appeals arise out of E. P. Nos. 68 and 69 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Collector, Kumbakonam.2. The facts material for this enquiry are the following: The appellants who are the landholders sought to bring the holding of a ryot, that is the present respondent, for sale in respect of arrears of rent for faslis 1353 and 1354. For this purppse, he issued notices to the defaulter through the Collector as required by Section 112, Madras Estates Land Act. On receipt of these notices, the ryots instituted two suits, S. S. Nos. 39 of 1945 and 200 of 1946 before the Collector, contesting the right of sale, within a period fixed under Sub-section (1) of Section 112. In those suits, it was agreed between the parties, that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 750 within nine months towards S. S. No. 39 of 1945 and Rs. 1750 within one year in S. S. No. 200 of 1946. On the basis of this agreement, a decree was passed by the Rev...
Porkrakutty Vs. Attancheri Velappil Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad381; (1953)IIMLJ622
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order made in revision under Section 12-B, Madras Buildings (Lease and Bent Control) Act passed by the learned District Judge of South Malabar in C. R. P. No. 10 of 1952.2. The facts are: The respondent before us A. V. Mammad has been carrying on business in a rented building belonging to one Aydress. Subsequently in 1950 he purchased a non-residential building, which is the subject-matter of controversy, for Rs. 5500 for doing business. Immediately after the purchase he caused a lawyer's notice to be issued to the petitioner before us who was occupying that non-residential building as a tenant carrying on business therein to surrender possession. The petitioner sent a reply agreeing to pay the stipulated rent but declined to surrender possession of the premises. I have just now mentioned that the respondent before us was occupying a non-residential building. The landlord of the building on the foot of a...
Sri Kalahasteeswaraswami Temple Represented by Its Paid Trustee P. Kum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad498
ORDERVenkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an application on behalf or the Kalahastheeswaraswami Devasthanam for the issue of a writ of mandamus prohibiting the State of Madras from taking possession of the village of Kalahaati.This village formed part of the ancient Zamin-dari of Kalahasti which is one of the impartible estates included in the Madras Impartible Estates Act II of 1904. In the year Virodhikrit (1791-92) the Rajah of Kalahasti granted the village in inam to the temple. On 16-9-1896 the then Zamin-dar of Kalahasti executed a mortgage over this and other villages. There was a suit to enforce this mortgage O. S. No. 14 of 1909 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, North Arcot, and a decree was passed therein for the sale of the hypotheca.A new zamindar having succeeded to the estate, he filed O. S. No. 8 of 1911 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, North Arcot, as hereditary trustee of the Kalahastheeswaraswami Devasthanam, for a declaration that the mortgage dated 16-9...
G. Ramachandra Gupta and anr. Vs. Pandurangam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad955; (1953)2MLJ315
Mack, J.1. A. A. O. 352/50: -- This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against an order of remand by the learned District Judge of Salem which cannot possibly be supported. In the suit a will executed by one Narasimha Chetty was propounded by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge found that it was not genuine. In appeal, it would appear, after the arguments began, an application I. A. No. 124 of 1950 was filed on behalf of the defendants to send the Will to the examiner of questioned documents or any other accredited hand-writing expert and for the admission of such additional evidence. The learned District Judge thought it necessary in the interests of justice to do so and remanded the whole suit for fresh disposal allowing the prayer in I. A. No. 124 of 1950. 2. The procedure adopted by the learned District Judge as it appears to me, is repugnant to Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C., which forbids parties to an appeal to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the...
Subbiah thevar Vs. Pichai Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad73; (1953)1MLJ517
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in I. A. No. 131 of 1950 in S. C. S. No. 75 Of 1950.2. The facts are: The plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 558-14-0 on a promissory note for Rs. 500. The suit was filed on 6-4-1950. This was taken on file and summonses were directed for 14-6-1950; Summons through court and post was ordered by 5-7-1950. The defendant was not served. It was adjourned to 18-7-1950. Substituted service was ordered by 20-7-1950. The suit was called on 21-7-1950. The plaintiff lived in a remote village and therefore his vakil applied for time. Time was given till 25-7-1950. On that day the plaintiff did not appear and the vakil had not been furnished with funds to enable him to take out steps. Therefore the suit was dismissed on 25-7-1950. On 31-7-1950 an application was filed for setting aside this order of dismissal of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge declined. Hence this revis...
Ahilyamba Chatram and Devasthanam by Its Hereditary Trustee, Sri Rajar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad101; (1953)2MLJ502
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the decree and judgment of the learned Small Cause Judge of Tanjore in S. C. No. 1177 of 1949.2. The facts are : The plaintiff, R. Subramania Aiyar, was appointed as clerk of the defendant, Ahilyamba Chatram Devasthanam, in 1927. It is evident from. Ex. A. 1 that as security for the proper fulfilment of his duties as a clerk under the defendant devastanam, the plaintiff deposited as security on three occasion amounts aggregating to Rs. 200. The receipts for these payments are Exs. A. 2 to A. 4. The plaintiff left the service of the Devastanam in 1930. He gave a registered notice on 15-1-1947 for return of the amount deposited. The devastanam did not comply with the demand. Hence the suit in the lower court.3. The controversy in the lower court and here is whether Article 120 or Article 145, Limitation Act, applies to the case. If the former is the case, the suit is barred by time and if the latter is the case, the sui...
C.P. Vasantarajan and ors. Vs. Parvathammani Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad201; (1953)IIMLJ493
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor in E. A. No. 143 of 1950 in E. P. No. 90 of 1949 in O. S. No. 34 of 1931.2. The facts are: The applicants in E. A. No. 143 of 1950 are the decree-holders in O. S. No. 63 of 1945 for a large amount of Rs. 62,000 against the Zamindar of Punganoor. The judgment-debtor, the zamindar of Punganoor, held a decree in his favour for costs in Privy Council App. No. 46 of 1943 arising from O. S. No. 34 ot 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor against one Raja Mahadeva Royal Varu. That decree was attached under Order 21, Rule 53, C. P. C. in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 63 of 1945 and the final order on that attachment petition is ex. A-1 dated 17-6-1948.In pursuance of that attachment the petitioners executed the Privy Council decree in E. P. No. 90 of 1949 and the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor deposited the decree amount of Rs. 14,389-14-0 ...
In Re: Kuppunni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad79; (1953)2MLJ411
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition which is sought to be filed against the order mage by the learned District Judge of South Malabar in C. M. A. No. 18 of. 1952.2. The facts are: The Official Receiver of Palghat held a sale of the insolvent's properties in I. P. No. 2 of 1943. The undivided. 1/4th share in 21 itemsof landed property, subject to a possessory mortgage for Rs. 450, was sold to the revision petitioner before us, Kuppunni for Rs. 1420. The petitioning-creditor filed an application under Section 68, Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale alleging that she had no notice of the sale and that the properties were worth more than the amount which they had fetched at the sale and that she was willing to purchase the properties for Rs. 2000. This petitioning-creditor also deposited the amount of Rs. 2000.The learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat set aside the sale and ordered a fresh sale with the following condition, viz., that if at a fresh sale a bid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »