Chennai Court September 1955 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.
N. Ananthayya Holla Vs. Thimmaju Hengsu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad293; (1956)1MLJ213
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This second appeal is posted before this Bench on, an order of reference made by one of us (Govinda Menon, J.), and which runs thus:The decision in Krishna Iyer v. Susai Reddiar : AIR1940Mad498 , on which the Lower Appellate Court relies runs somewhat counter to another Bench decision in Arunagiri Mudaliar v. Radhakrhhna Ayyar (1941) M.L.J. 520, as well as the decision in Shan Ram Chand v. Pandit Prabhu Dayal Post before a Bench.The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The mulgeni right in the plaint-schedule properties belonged to one Subbu Punjathi by purchase in April, 1908. A few months later, in August, 1908, the muli right in the properties was purchased by her and her son, Ramayya Punja. Subbu Punjathi had a daughter who is the present plaintiff. In January, 1936, Subbu Punjathi and her son, Ramayya Punja, executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,000. It must be borne in mind that Subbu Punjathi owned the entire...
Karuppanna Goundan Vs. Ponnuthayee Alias Subbammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ190
Govinda Menon, J.1. The question referred to the Bench is as follows:Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act can be invoked to give an extension of time to an application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in a case in which no allegation or proof of fraud is made or established as against the auction-purchaser.The finding concurrently arrived at by both the lower Courts is that the decree holder was guilty of fraud in that the judgment-debtors were kept out of knowledge about the sale in the execution proceedings by his act. Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, makes it clear that an application under that rule can be made to set aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. It means that a material irregularity or fraud must be one antecedent to the sale. It is not likely in the majority of cases that the intending auction-purchaser would have played fraud in publishing or conducting the sale for at t...
Easoop Alias Mani Rowthen and ors. Vs. Bookutty Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad259; (1956)1MLJ427
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat in O.P. No. 36 of 1949.2. The facts are: A petition was filed by the purchaser of the equity of redemption in some of the properties mortgaged to one Vella alias Moidinkutty Rowthen by one Balakrishna Mannadiar on 27th March, 1913, for scaling down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. Balakrishna Mannadiar aforesaid executed the aforesaid document in respect of 65 items of properties described in the schedule to that document. The principal sum secured under the document was Rs. 6,014-4-7. The mortgagee was directed to discharge a prior mortgage in and over items 46 to 53 after payment of a sum of Rs. 1,714-4-7 to the prior mortgagee. He was to reduce the properties to his possession, but the mortgagee did not do so as he did not discharge the prior mortgage. Therefore the parties agreed before the learned Subordinate Judge that the m...
K.M. Ardhanari Mudaliar Vs. Abdul Rahiman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ243
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits instituted by members of a Muhammadan family for partition. It will be convenient to refer to the parties as described in O.S. No. 338 of 1948 out of which Second Appeal No. 1434 of 1951 arises. The plaintiff Abdul Rahiman is the son of Nooruddin. Nooruddin's father was Allauddin who died in about 1920. Allauddin had two sons and four daughters of whom Nooruddin was one. Nooruddin's wife and the mother of the plaintiff is Rokia Bi, defendant 4. Besides the plaintiff, Nooruddin had two sons, the 1st and 2nd defendants, and a daughter, the 3rd defendant. Nooruddin died in 1923. After the death of her husband, the 4th defendant Rokia Bi executed a power of attorney to the 1st defendant, who is her eldest son, on 21st February, 1933 under Exhibit A-5 and on 16th October, 1933 there was a partition of the properties belonging to Allauddin. The 1st defendant represented the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 in the said partition and th...
N.B. Sitarama Rao Vs. Venkatarama Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad261; (1956)1MLJ5
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The second defendant is the appellant in this appeal which rises out of a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for specific performance of a registered agreement, Exhibit A-1 dated 29th November, 1933, for reconveying certain immovable properties. The facts which have given rise to this litigation may shortly be stated: By Exhibit B-1, dated 29th November, 1933, the properties which are the subject-matter of the litigation were sold by five brothers namely, 8th defendant's father, defendants 3, 4, 6 and 7 of whom the 7th defendant was a minor represented by the father, of the 8th defendant as his guardian in favour of two brothers, defendants 1 and 2 of whom the first defendant was a major and the second defendant being minor was represented by the first defendant as his guardian, for a consideration of Rs. 32,000. On the same date Exhibit A-1 was executed? by which the vendees (defendants 1 and 2) agreed to reconvey the properties to the vendors after the sec...
Ganga Naicken and anr. Vs. A. Sundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad597; (1956)1MLJ63
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This reference raises a question of the construction of Section 87(2) of the Madras Court Fees Act XIV of 1955.2. The matter directly arose out of a copy application filed for obtaining a copy of judgment and decree in Civil Revision Petition No. 910 of 1954 where a two annas court-fee stamp was affixed on the application, which was the fee payable under the Court Fees Act of 1870, the present court-fee being four annas for the same application under Article 11(a) and (b) of Schedule II to the Act. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the application for a copy is in respect of a proceeding arising from a suit or proceeding before the commencement of the Act, and as such under Section 87(2), such an application would be governed by the previous Court Fees Act VII of 1870.3. Section 87 of Act XIV of 1955 is in the following terms:(1) The Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870) in its application to the State of Madras and in relation to th...
Puthiya Purayil Abdurahiman, Karnavan and Manager of the Tavazhi Tarwa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ119
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The learned District Munsif of Cannanore has referred the following question for decision by this Court:Whether the Madras Shariat (Amendment) Act (Act XVIII of 1949) is ultra vires of Article 19. Clause (1)(f) of the Constitution Act.The question was raised in a suit pending before the learned District Munsif brought by the widow of one deceased Abdulla Kalpha for partition and separate possession of certain properties, described in schedule A to the plaint. Abdulla Kalpha was a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad. On 30th October, 1918, the members of the tarwad executed a karar in and by which the main tarwad was divided into three tavazhis. Abdulla Kalpha was a member of the third tavazhi and was one of the executants of the document. The said karar provided inter alia that in case one tavazhi became extinct, the properties allotted to the said tavazhi would lapse to the other tavazhis. Abdulla Kalpha was the sole surviving member of the third tavazhi. He die...
Neelambal Ammal and ors. Vs. Rajarathnam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad336; (1956)1MLJ245
Govinda Menon, J.1. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to whether a Hindu widow in possession of very little property left by her husband can or cannot sell the same for her future maintenance. The principle of law is well established that a widow can alienate her husband's property for necessity of the estate. No authority is needed for that proposition. As stated in the order of reference, Venkata subba Rao, J., in Ramalinga v. Pamathathammal : AIR1926Mad1122 and Devadoss, J., in Kuthalinga v. Shanmuga (1925) 50 M.L.J. 234, took a liberal view that where there is compelling necessity the widow can sell the entire property of her husband for the purpose of her future maintenance. A different view seems to have been taken by Raghava Rao, J., in Rathnam Pillai v. Subramania Ayyar : AIR1953Mad238 , on the observations of Chief Justice Beaumont in Gyanu Kashiba v. Sarubai Biru : AIR1943Bom266 that a widow has no power to sell the properties for her future maintenance.2. In our opin...
T.V.K. Chokkalinga Tevar Vs. Kailasa Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad238; (1956)2MLJ34
Govinda Menon, J.1. This Appeal arises in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1934 on the file of the District Court, East Tanjore at Nagapattinam. The decree-holders' application to execute the decree has been held to be barred by the lower Court on the ground that it was filed more than three years after the final order was passed on an earlier application. The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:In O.S. No. 2 of 1934 a decree was passed against all the defendants of whom defendants 1 to 5 formed one group and defendants 6 and 7 another. On 24th April, 1934 there was an appeal against that but that was dismissed on 9th February, 1939. The first application for the execution of the decree was filed on 13th August, 1940 on which final order was passed on 20th October, 1942. The present application for execution directed against defendants 6 and 7 alone was filed on 23rd September, 1946 more than three years after final orders had been passed on the ealier applicati...
S.E. Mohamad Abdulla Sons, Through Its Managing Partner, M.S. Mohammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad254; (1956)1MLJ184
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This revision is filed by the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 638 of 1952 on the file of the Principal Small Cause Court, Madurai, to recover from two defendants, the respondents to this revision petition, a sum of Rs. 480 claimed as refund of the excess rent paid by the plaintiff at Rs. 5 per month over and above the fair rent determined by the Rent Controller. The house-property in question belong d to the defendants and the plaintiff became a tenant under the second defendant with effect from 14th January, 1943, on a monthly rent of Rs. 35. The plaintiff was paying rent at that rate to defendant 2 till October, 1948, when a partition took place between the second defendant and her son, defendant 1, in which the property in question was allotted to the share of defendant 1; and thereafter, the plaintiff was paying the rent only to defendant 1 at the said rate. Then, in 1950, the plaintiff filed an application M.B.P. 195 of 1950 for fixation of fair rent; and on that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »