Chennai Court January 1943 Judgments
In Re: Dondapati Ellappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad464; (1943)1MLJ267
Mockett, J. 1. The appellants were convicted before Mr. W.O. Newsam sitting at Chittoor as a Special Judge under Ordinance No. II of 1942. They were charged with various offences under the Defence of India Rules. In short, they were charged with sabotage of the railways by removing rails and fishplates on the permanent way. I am not concerned in any way with the facts. They were convicted and sentenced each to five years' rigorous imprisonment except in the case of accused 4, who was sentenced to five years' simple imprisonment. They have appealed against their conviction to this High Court and the Public Prosecutor takes the point that no appeal lies. I am quite satisfied that the point is a good one.2. The ordinance makes provision for the present emergency for the trial of criminal offences and it has constituted certain special tribunals. There are Special Judges and Special Magistrates and Summary Courts as stated in Clause 3. The offences which these tribunals respectively may tr...
Tag this Judgment!Paidipati Kamma Narasayya Vs. D. Thimmappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad584; (1943)1MLJ289
Somayya, J. 1. O.S. No. 121 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Anantapur, was dismissed for default on 22nd July, 1941. An application to set aside the dismissal for default was filed on 25th July, 1941, by I. A. No. 474 of 1941. This application was dismissed for default by an order dated 1st October, 1941. Against this order an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the District Judge of Anantapur dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay against the order of the District Munsif dated 1st October, 1941.2. Order 43, Rule 1 (c) under which the appeal was preferred to the lower appellate Court runs thus;An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely :-(c) an order under Rule 9 of Order 9 rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit.3. This order applies in terms to the order of the District Munsif dated the 1st October, 1941. I. A. No. 474 of 1941 was an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Govindan Vs. K.P. Annamalai Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad128; (1943)2MLJ531
Wadsworth, J.1. No doubt the decision on which the lower Court relies has been overruled by the Bench which decided Palani Goundan v. Peria Goundan : AIR1941Mad158 . But there is a further objection to the maintainability of the application. Petitioner purchased the property bound by the decree only in May, 1940. When Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force he was not a debtor at all and there can be no question of calling in aid Section 19 to apply Sections 8 and 9 to the debt as if it was a debt falling under either of those sections. I say nothing about what would be the result if the mortgagor got the decree scaled down on his own application. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chennamangalath Manakkal Vasudevan Nambudripad Vs. Ambujakshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad524; (1943)1MLJ393
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to evict his tenants, defendants 1 to 6, from the land in suit. The tenancy was an oral one and was from year to year. The relief was asked for because the tenants had failed to pay the rent due for several years. In addition to asking for a decree for eviction the plaintiff asked for a decree for a sum equivalent to the rent due for three years preceding the suit.2. The tenants were members of a tarwad and before the suit was instituted they had separated. On separation, defendants 1, 3 and 6 sub-let a portion of the land in suit to the eighth defendant, who subsequently assigned his sub-tenancy to the seventh defendant. The suit was not defended and a decree directing the eviction of defendants 1 to 6 and the payment to the plaintiff of the three years' rent was passed. Notwithstanding that none of the defendants had resisted the suit the seventh defendant filed an appeal. At the hearing she said that she was prepared to pay the am...
Tag this Judgment!Palaparthi Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Duggina Papayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad718; (1943)2MLJ152
Horwill, J.1. The matter in dispute in O.S. No. 182 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsiff of Nandalur was referred to five arbitrators. They were given time for the filing of the award and that time was extended frequently, until at last, on the 26th April, 1941, the award was filed by the fifth arbitrator and signed by three other arbitrators. That was the last day on which the Court sat before the summer vacation. The Judge ordered the suit to be called again on the 11th June, 1941, two days after the reopening of the Court. On that day, as no petition had been filed to set aside the award, the suit was decreed in terras of the award. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants, complaining that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were not complied with, in that they were given no notice either by the arbitrators or by the Court, that they had no opportunity to file objections, and that the decree is therefore a nullity.2. The plaintiff raises a preliminary object...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvadana Malayalam Coffee Club, Manager Kavasseri Ottupuram Gramom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad573; (1943)2MLJ24
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage deed executed by the first defendant in favour of one Ananthu Ammal who assigned her rights to the fourth defendant from whom the plaintiff took in turn an assignment in 1933. The first defendant is the executant of the document on which the suit is brought and defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. The fourth defendant is the assignor of the plaintiff. The fifth defendant who is the appellant in this second appeal was impleaded as a subsequent mortgagee. The property mortgaged was a kanom interest which defendants 1, 2 and 3 had. The period of twelve years under the kanom which was subsisting on the date of the mortgage sued upon, expired after the mortgage and there was a renewal of the kanom about the time of Ex. I dated the nth April, 1932. The fifth defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2,332-12-0 towards the renewal fee in respect of the. above-renewal of the original kanom. The claim advanced by the fifth defendant is t...
Tag this Judgment!Kopparthi Bala Lingayya Vs. Sunku Nallayya (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad62; (1943)2MLJ508
Horwill, J.1. The appellant's vendor was the mortgagee of a two-thirds share in the suit house. That mortgage had been executed by the uncles of Subbayya; and what they mortgaged purported to be their two-thirds share of that house. They died soon afterwards and a mortgage suit was brought against Subbayya as the legal representative of his uncles and in execution of the resultant decree the appellant's vendor purchased the property. Subbayya himself had mortgaged the whole of the house to the respondent, purporting to act as manager of the family of himself and his two uncles. The respondent brought a suit on that mortgage and purchased the house in execution. It was delivered on 13th July, 1930. When the appellant tried to obtain possession, he was obstructed by the respondent. He sought for the removal of that obstruction, but his petition was dismissed on the ground that his proper remedy was to file a partition suit, such as was suggested in Mandavalli Rama Rao v. Sivanarayana (19...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Chettiar Vs. Samdum Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad357; (1943)1MLJ237
ORDERByers, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this case is whether the powers of a Magistrate to abate a nuisance under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, have been curtailed by the powers conferred on local authorities to abate nuisances under Section 44 of the Madras Public Health Act and Section 195 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The facts are that the Joint Magistrate of Tindivanam issued a preliminary order under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the owner of a local rice mill to cease working the factory or to remove it to some other place, on the ground that it constituted a nuisance in that it affected the health and comfort of the general public living in the locality. In the alternative he was given an opportunity of showing cause against the removal. It may be only a clerical error in the order that he was not apparently to be given an opportunity of showing cause against ceasing to run the factory in its existing location. The point ta...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddam Padmanabham Vs. Pasupuleti Kamaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad481; (1943)1MLJ314
ORDERPatanjali Sastri, J. 1. The second appeal out of which this petition arises was dismissed on the 16th July, 1942. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent was also refused. The petitioner who was the appellant now applies under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, for a certificate that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of that Act.2. The question sought to be raised before the Federal Court is whether the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act is, in so far as it purports to affect debts due under Negotiable Instruments, ultra vires, the Provincial Legislature. This question arose for consideration in another case and was answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court (see Nagaratnam v. Seshayya (1939) 1 M.L.J. 272 : I.L.R. (1939) Mad. 151. In view of that decision both the Courts below in the present case overruled the petitioner's contention that the promissory note on which he brought the suit was not affected by the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Satti Suri Reddi and ors. Vs. Kolachina Agnihotrudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad764; (1943)2MLJ528
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants were the tenants of the first respondent who instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, for their ejectment at the expiry of the term granted. The defence was that the lands occupied by them were part of anlnam village and therefore they had the right of permanent occupancy, The Subordinate Judge held that the lands which they occupied were Inam lands, but the grant was not a grant of a whole village and therefore the lands comprised in the grant were not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. Consequently the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit for ejectment in a Civil Court. He granted the relief claimed and the appeal is from the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge.2. In deciding the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge relied on the entries in the Inam Register. The plaintiff, however,produced 4 documents-Exhibits R. W, Y and Z of earlier dates which he conten...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »