Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Sm. K. Ponnalagu Ammal vs The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 7 November, 1952

C.Chinnappa vs Jayamma on 2 February, 2024

39. I have followed the said judgment in K. Ponnalagu Ammani V. State of Madras, (1953) 66 LW 136 and V.N.Krishna murthy and another V. Ravikumar and others (2020) 9 SCC 501 and have taken a view that lis pendens purchaser is a person aggrieved by the decree and is entitled to file an appeal against the decree. When he is entitled to file an appeal against the decree, necessarily he is entitled to argue that the decree passed by the trial Court is wrong.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nestore vs Mrs. Regeena on 18 December, 2020

19. Admittedly, the Review Applicants in Review Application No.52 of 2020 are the appellants in O.S.A.No.250 of 2019. The other Review Application No. 53 of 2020 was filed by the defendants 2, 8 and 9, who are also parties to the O.S.A. Therefore, it cannot be said that persons, who have no semblance of right in the "lis", have come forward with these Review Applications and as parties to the "lis" as aggrieved persons, they can maintain the Review Applications. For maintaining a Review Application, it must be shown that there are certain legal errors apparent on the face of the record and such error has to be rectified by re-visiting them. Such an error can be brought to the notice of this Court by a party to the "lis" and who may be aggrieved by the Judgment under review, either directly or indirectly. Whether the points urged by them would warrant a review or there is no merits in the Review Application, is a question to be considered at the time of hearing the Review Applications. Therefore, we are of the view that the present Review Applications are maintainable at the instance of the Review Applicants herein and we are not inclined to reject the Review Applications at the threshold without examining the questions raised on legal grounds. This is evident from the decision of a Division Page No.36/55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Rev.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2020 in O.S.A.No.250 of 2019 Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1953 Madras 485 (Sm.K.Ponnalagu Ammal Vs. The State of Madras).
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - R Subbiah - Full Document

R.Subbiah vs The State Of Madras on 29 November, 2010

In this regard, the judgment reported in AIR 1953 Mad 485 (K.PONNALAGU AMMAL ..vs.. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MADRAS), relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is an answer to the contention raised by the 1st respondent as to whether a person, who is not a party to the suit, is entitled to prefer an appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

The Premier Life And General Insurance ... vs H. Krishna Shet And Ors. on 10 October, 1955

141, K. Ponnalagu Ammal v. State of Madras represented by Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. and Royal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Abdul Mohomed Meheralli . 19th July, 1955. In my view, the principle enunciated in these decisions apply fully to the facts of the case, and applying these principles, I think that there is every justification for me to allow the petitioner the right to appeal against the decree passed by the Sub-Judge. It cannot be disputed that under Section 2, Sub-clause (10) of the Civil Procedure Code, the decree that has been passed against the petitioner is one that affects him, and he is a judgment-debtor within the meaning of Sub-section (10) of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. An order capable of execution against the present petitioner has been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, and in that sense the petitioner is one who is affected by the order.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Divyang Jayantilal Mevada vs Heirs Of Jivaji Mohanji Thakor on 1 December, 2021

In Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani v. The State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and Ors.: 66 Law Weekly 136, this Court laid down the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding Page 25 of 27 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 06:25:41 IST 2022 C/CA/2057/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021 against the decree or judgment passed in such proceedings in following words:
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Nanavati - Full Document

The Indrapur Seva Cooperative Society ... vs Vaghasar Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited on 10 February, 2021

45 The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court has been referred to and relied upon by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case Page 23 of 28 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/15478/2020 CAVJUDGMENT of SM K Ponnalagu Ammal vs. State of Madras, Represented by Secretary to Revenue Department, Madras reported in 1953 AIR (Mad) 485 wherein the Madras High Court observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Patel Vinodbhai Khodidas vs Patel Pravinbhai Kacharabhai on 26 March, 2021

7.8 In recent decision in V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Ravikumar [(2020) 9 SCC 501] the Supreme Court travelled through its own decisions in Jatan Kanwar Golcha (supra), Baldev Singh (supra), A. Subash Babu (supra) and Sm. K. Ponnalagu Ammal (supra) summarised thus, "The expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised." (Para
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Mooman Jafferali Aliji Maknojiya vs Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj on 5 October, 2021

10. We may also refer to a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Srimathi K.Ponnalagu Ammani vs. The State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and Ors., reported in AIR 1953 Madras 485. The High Court laid down the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment passed in such proceedings in following words :
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next