Chennai Court September 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.
Parappa Alias Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Nagamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad576; (1954)IMLJ250
1. This appeal has been referred to the Full Bench at the instance of my learned brother Krishnaswami Nayudu J. The facts that led up to the reference may briefly be stated. For convenience of reference the following genealogy may be extracted:PARAPPA|________________|___________________| || |Chennarayappa Bheemappa| || |Hanumanthappa Gangappa (died 1940) =Saranamma =Nagamma(2nd Wife-Deft.2) (Plaintiff) | || |Parappa alias |Hanumathappa |(Defendant 1) |______________________________________|_____| | || | |Gowramma Thippamma Chennamma (Piff.2) (Piff.3)2. The persons shown in the genealogy constituted members of a joint Hindu family. At the time of the death of Gangappa in 1940 the family owned 15 acres of wet land called 'Gonchi' lands irrigated by channel and well, 14 acres of well-fed land and 120 acres of red soil dry land and two nouses. Subsequent to his death, from and out of the agricultural lands the family acquired item 3 (house), a sum of Rs. 5000 the amount of fixed deposit s...
Musunuru Nagendramma Vs. Musunuru Ramakotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad713
Subba Rao, J.I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by ray learned brother. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by him. But I do not propose to express my opinion on the question whether the first wife living apart from her husband on the ground that he married a second wife is entitled to maintenance by reason of the second marriage alone; nor is it necessary to express my view on the second question whether such marriage in itself would be a sufficient ground before Act 19 of 1946 for awarding maintenance to the first wife. I agree with my learned brother on the interpretation of the provisions of Act 19 of 1948. But if the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance only under the Act, I would confine her right to maintenance only from the date of the Act. But on the finding of my learned brother that she was abandoned by her husband, with which I agree, she would be entitled to arrears of maintenance for the period before the Act also. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an app...
Ramaswami Servai and ors. Vs. Muthiralayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad560
Chandra Reddy, J.1. This is a petition filed against file order of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, overruling the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner that the respondents could not be heard inasmuch as they had not filed an application to set aside the award within thirty days of the receipt of the order or notice by them. The petitioner filed on 17th November 1952 the award dated 10th July 1952 into court with a request that a decree might be passed in terms of the award. Notice of this was served on the respondents on 28th November 1952. Within thirty days of the receipt of notice, that is, on 5th December 1952, the respondents filed a counter attacking the genuineness and validity of the award. In that counter it was prayed that the court might be pleased to pass an order dismissing the petition. The basis of the preliminary objection already referred to above was that as there was no application with a prayer to set aside the award within thirty days as requ...
M.S. Kalyanasundaram Ayyar Vs. M.S. Subramanya Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad675; (1954)IMLJ507
1. While dismissing S. A. No. 1106 of 1945, Baghava Rao J. granted leave for a further appeal as against the eighth respondent therein and refused leave as against the fifth respondent. Under those circumstances, the appellant has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal against the eighth respondent in the second appeal who was the 13th defendendant in O. S. No. 23 of 1942 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Mathurai out of which these proceedings have arisen.2. The plaintiff-appellant is the eldest son of the first defendant whose other sons are defendants 2 to 4 & they are members of a joint Hindu family. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in .the joint family properties. The 13th defendant, who is the contesting respondent both in the second appeal and in this Letters Patent Appeal, was impleaded as an alienee of certain joint family properties and the plaintiff claimed his share in those properties as well. The 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›