Chennai Court June 1960 Judgments
S. Venkatesh Kotadia Vs. Shantha Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad105; (1960)2MLJ346
Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to whether an execution sale of immovable property to a stranger purchaser has got to be confirmed under Order XXI, Rule 92, C. P. C., notwithstanding the fact that the decree, in execution of which the sale took place had, before its confirmation, been modified on appeal there from, with the result that on the date of the sale, the decree remained overpaid and nothing was due under the same. In such circumstances, the lower Court declined to confirm the sale on the view that, on the date of the sale, nothing was due to the decree-holders for which they could put up the property for sale. Aggrieved by that order, the stranger purchaser has filed this appeal.2. On 31-3-1954 in suit No. 17 of 1941, the Joint Civil Judge, Nadiad passed a decree tor Rs. 39,878-7-9 with costs in favour of Santha Bai and Dave Bhavani Sankar and against three defendants, Deva Jetharama Jebhai (deceased), Dave Ganpatram Jetharam and Dave Jayadevlal...
Tag this Judgment!Lokambal Achi Vs. P. Srinivasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad160; (1961)1MLJ370
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Lokambal Achi, the decree-holder in O. S. No. 65 of 1943, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is the appellant before me. On 9-10-1950 she obtained a decree in that court for Rs. 12278-1-0. Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit appealed to this court in A. S. No. 117 of 1951. While the appeal was pending, Lokambal Acbi levied execution. The judgment-debtors then moved this court for stay of execution and by an order of the court made on 29-3-1951, it directed the judgment-debtors to deposit in court a sum of Rs. 5000 in cash.The judgment-debtors were further directed to furnish security for the balance of the decree amount and costs. The judgment-debtors deposited Rs. 5000 on 11-4-1951, but instead of furnishing security in respect of the balance of Rs. 7496-5-0 they elected to deposit that money into court. This they did on 25-6-1951. On 11-7-1951 the decree-holder applied for a cheque for Rs. 1056-5-0 stating that it represented the costs of the suit. A c...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Ayyar and anr. Vs. Avadai Velar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad251; (1961)1MLJ193
1. This appeal from the judgment of Ramaswami Gounder J. arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of one third share in the properties conveyed to the plaintiff and his two brothers, defendants 3 and 4, by defendant 43 under a sale deed dated 28-3-1946. The sale was for a consideration of Rs. 3,000 of which Rs. 1,000 was paid by the plaintiff to defendant 43 at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The vendor, evidently, having at the instance of his brothers, defendants 1 and 2, refused to register the sale deed, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 got it compulsorily registered.The property conveyed under the sale deed is in Mannankadu village in Paltukottai taluk, which is a shrotriem inam consisting of 16 shares. Panchapakesa Ayyar and his sons, defendants 1, 2 and 43, owned 2-12-9 shares out of them under a court auction purchase. Even after the death of Panchapakesa Ayyar, his three sons continued, as before, as members of a Joint Hindu family. Under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Veeraswami Reddy Vs. Kanakammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad199; (1960)2MLJ379
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. On the 1st March 1951 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 200 in favour of the plaintiff. Some two years thereafter, the defendant left India for Ceylon and has not since come back. In July 1958 the plaintiff filed a suit on the promissory note in the court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur. The defendant filed a written statement in which he contended that the suit note was not supported by consideration and that it was time-barred. The learned Munsif overruled these contentions and decreed the suit. The defendant has come to this court in revision.2. The first contention of Mr. Ratnam, the learned advocate for the petitioner, may be thus expressed. Though Section 13 of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for a suit the time during which the defendant has been absent from India should be excluded, still Section 9 enacts that when once time has begun to run no subsequent disab...
Tag this Judgment!Sampath Lakshmi Guardian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ386
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is an application by v. Sampath Lakshmi, the property and personal guardian of her minor children (1) Lalitha Bai, (2) Narayanan, (3) Lakshmanan, (4) Sita Kumari, (5) Gopal, (6) Mirabai, (7) Ramani, and (8) Kasturi, of whom five are her daughters and three are her sons, for sanction of the court to have her minor daughter Lalitha Bai, the first named, married to her brother Satyamurthi, and for payment out of ft sum of Rs. 3000 from and out of the estate managed by her towards the marriage expenses of the contemplated marriage.She was appointed guardian by order of court dated 18-9-1959 in O. P. No. 97 of 1959 on the file of the Original Side of this court. Previously, her husband Venkatesan was appointed guardian of the property and person of some of the minor children in O. P. No. 30 of 1950. The two minor children, Ramani and Kasturi, were born to Venkatesan and Sampath Lakshmi after the order of court in O. P. No. 30 of 1950 appointing Venkatesan as the gu...
Tag this Judgment!Alsidass Kaverlal Vs. J. Hiriya Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad189; (1960)2MLJ561
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner decree-holder against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund in an execution application under Order 21, Rule 48 C. P. C. The facts are simple and are as follows: Originally the appellant (decree-holder) prayed to the court below for the issue of a prohibitory order ill respect of certain amounts payable by the Garrison Engineer, Wellington to the respondent (judgment-debtor), apparently relating to certain contracts for the Army executed by the judgment-debtor. It is not in dispute before me that this application under Order 21, Rule 46 C. P. C. was perfectly maintainable and in order, and that it related to the sums payable by the Garrison Engineer to the judgment-debtor upto the date of the application. As will be clear from a glance at Order 21, Rule 46 C. P. C. that rule applies to attachment of certain kinds of property not in possession of the judgment-debtor, including a debt not secured by a negotiable...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›