Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad386
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. C. R. P. Nos. 797 and 798 of 1947: These revision petitions are against the orders in C. M. A. Nos. 115 and 120 of 1946 respectively on the file of the District Judge of Guntur. These relate to the insolvency of one Immadisetti Bikshapathi. A creditor of his, filed I. P. No. 15 of 1946 on 6th September 1946 for his adjudication. An ex parte order for adjudication was made. The petitioners who claim to be transferees of the properties of the insolvent filed applications to be added as parties to the said I. P. No. 15 of 1946 as they contended that they are entitled to notice of the adjudication petition before final orders were passed. The applications filed by the petitioners for adding them as parties and hearing them were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur before whom the said I. P. No. 15 of 1946 was filed and an ex parte order of adjudication was made adjudicating the debtor an insolvent on 6th November 1946. As against the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad749
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. C. R. P. No. 1594 of 1947, arises out of the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in S. C. S. No. 47 of 1947 and C. R. P. 1595 of 1947 arises out of the decision of the same learned Judge in S. C. S. No. 48 of 1947. S. C. S. No. 47 of 1947 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 651-4-0 due under two promissory notes, one dated 27-7-1940 for Rs. 100 and the other dated 4-6-1942 for Rs. 400. S. C. S. No. 48 of 1947 was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 707-12-0, on three promissory notes. Of these three promissory notes, only one is in question, viz. that executed on 27-4-1943 for a sum of Rs. 334.2. Both these suits were filed on 31-1-1947, that is to say, long after the date on which the promissory notes had become time-barred prima facie. In order to save time the plaintiff, who is the same in both the suits, relied upon certain agreements of even date entered into by the defendants who are identical in both the suits, which he cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant18; AIR1950Mys18
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision in R.A. 145 of 1947 48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore reversing that of the second Munsiff, Bangalore in Execution No. 317 of 1946-47.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether Execution Case No. 317 of 1946/47 referred to above was rightly dismissed as barred by tim.e This execution case filed on 27th January 1947 more than 12 years after 27th November 1933 the date of the decree sought to be executed, and more than 3 years after the dismissal of previous Execution Case No. 802 of 1933-34 on 23rd November 1984, is clearly barred both under Section 48, Civil, P.C. as well as under Art. 182, Limitation Act unless it is construed to be continuation of the latter execution case.3. The short point for consideration is, therefore, whether Execution No. 317 of 1946-47 can be construed to be a continuation of Execution No. 802 of 1933-34. The latter case was dismissed on 23rd November 1934 as decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ637
Sanghi, J.1. The resp. keeps a hotel in Gwaltoli indore. On 20.2.1945. the police searched his house in the coarse of the investigation of a theft. From an iron safe forty-three revolver cartridges were recovered; of these, it is alleged, twenty-four were old. What it meant by old cartridges has not bean explained. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 5, Indore Explosive Substances Act for being in possession of explosive substances without an explanation that he had them for a lawful object. The learned Dist. Mag. Indore City convicted him under that section & sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 100. On appeal the learned Ses. J. acquitted him on the ground that the explanation rendered by him was a good one. The explanation given by the resp. was that he found these cartridges left by some one in the hotel. He kept them carefully to be returned to the owner. His brother in law Pannalal lives at Ujjain & he holds license for possessing a revolver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj15; 1950CriLJ499
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The applicant stands convicted Under Section 18(1) of Central Act, xxin [28] of 1931 and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that on s, search being made of the house of the applicant a number of 'unauthorized news, sheets' were re. covered from his possession, and had been kept by him for purposes of distribution.2. The first point taken up in revision before the Court is that the documents in question are no 'news-sheets' within the meaning of Section S (6) of the Act which lays down that 'news-sheet' means any document.....containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The matter des-oribea in B. 4 (1)(d)is to bring into hatred or contempt Hia Majesty oe the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice In British India or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj148
Gupta, J.1. This is judgment-debtor's S. A. in execution proceedings under Section 40, Bikaner Civil P. C. A decree was passed against the J. D. for Rs. 23-9-6 on account of rent & for eviction from a house occupied by the J. D. as a tenant of the decree-holder. The decree was passed by the City Munsif of Bikaner on 10-8-1948, & because there was no appeal therefrom, it had become final. The decree holder applied for execution of the decree on 15-10-1948. On 26-8-1949 i. e., more than five months alter the execution appln. was male & after taking several adjournments for vacating the house in question, the J. D. made an appln. that he was willing & ready to pay the decretal amount of rent & (not the amount of rent that had become due from him this date) that he may be allowed to deposit the same in Ct. for payment to the D. H. & that be may not be made to vacate the house & the execution appln. be struck of the file of the Ct. This request was not granted by the executing original Ct. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad680
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 29 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry is the appellant. She is the widow of one Mruthinjaya Rao. She sued for partition and separate possession of her half share in certain immovable properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Defendant 1 is the brother of her deceased husband. Defendants 2 to 4 are the undivided sons of defendant 1. Defendants 5 and 6 were made parties because they were in possession of portions of properties having obtained them in exchange for properties belonging to them. The plaintiff's case shortly was that the properties in Schedule A originally belonged to one Reddi Rama Brahmam and on his death devolved successively on his widow Subbamma and daughter Lakahminarasamma and thereafter on the two sons of the daughter, namely, the deceased husband of the plaintiff and defendant 1 and that the two brothers became entitled to and enjoyed the properties as tenants in common and on the death of her husband hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj20
ORDERBapna, J. 1. The petitioner Gambhirmal filed an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaur on 12th May 1945 which for reasons mentioned hereafter was treated as a revision and is being dealt with accordingly. 2. One Gyanchand filed a suit in the Court of Thikana Nimaj on 17th September 1943 on the allegation that a certain house and a Nohra situate at Papar were mortgaged with possession by his father Chandan Mal to Shobha Chand and Kalyan Chand in Section 1948 for RS. 500 and that Udai Chand defendant 1 was their sole heir and legal representative. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-title of Udaichand had submortgaged the properly to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 viz., Simrathmal, Samirmal, Gambhirmal, Mt. Dhapi, Mt. Teenja and Manakchand, and by certain arrangements between the and defendants, the property was now in possession of Mt. Dhapi and Teeaja. It wag stated that as the defendants refused to redeem the property on tender bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad603
Raghava Rao, J.1. This appeal is against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court of a suit dismissed by the trial Court. The suit was for refund of a certain sum of money paid to the defendant by the plaintiffs under a contract by the defendant to lease certain lands to the plaintiffs, and for recovery of damages for breach of the contract. The plaintiffs relied on Ex. A in proof of the lease; but the trial Court held it to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, and dismissed the suit as not therefore maintainable. On appeal the lower appellate Court has remanded the suit after reversing the view of the trial Court in regard to the admissibility in evidence of Ex. A.2. Exhibit A runs in the following terms in the translation to be found in para. 9 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court which I prefer on the whole to the translation to be found in the record printed here :'The band letter by Arumugha Mudali to Muruga Mudaliar and Palani Mudaliar dated 2nd Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad621
Subba Rao, J.1. The main question in these appeals is whether a son is liable to discharge the liability of his father in regard to a covenant of indemnity given by him. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one Venkatarama Iyer. Venkatarama Iyer for himself and acting as guardian of his minor sons, defendants 2 and 3, and defendant 1 as a major executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, Ramaswami Iyer on 12th August 1937 in respect of their joint family properties for a sum of Rs. 21,000. Out of the said amount, Ramaswami Iyer paid Rs. 9.000 for discharge of antecedent debts. Of the balance of the price, Ramaswami Iyer executed a promissory note in favour of Venkatarama Iyer for a sum of Rs. 5,250 with an understanding that out of the said amount Rs. 2,'250 was to be paid within one year and the balance of Rs. 3,000 to be paid on defendant 3 attaining majority and giving a release deed. The balance of the sum of RS. 6,000 was agreed to be paid to defendants 2 and 3 in e...
Tag this Judgment!