Chennai Court February 1943 Judgments
Bagavandas Moopanar Vs. Muhammad Gani Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad478; (1943)1MLJ319
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The question that arises in this petition is whether the successor to the Magistrate who passed a decision under Sections 145 to 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code can pass an order as to costs under Section 148 (3) of the Code.2. A plain reading of Section 148 (3) indicates that a successor to the Magistrate who passed an order under Sections 145 to 148 cannot pass an order as to costs. As no time limit is laid down in Section 148 (3) there is no objection to an order as to costs being passed on a subsequent application; and since that sub-section relates only to a direction as to by whom such costs shall be paid and whether in whole or in part, there can be no objection to a succeeding Magistrate assessing the costs regarding which an order has already been passed. So that decisions which deal with the questions whether a succeeding Magistrate can assess costs or whether an order as to costs can be made some time after a decision under Sections 145 to 147 has been...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narella Satyanarayanamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad572; (1943)1MLJ315
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. A report or charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Chirala in The Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ongole in which several offences punishable under Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were disclosed. The warrant procedure was adopted, but a charge was framed with regard to an offence not mentioned in the charge sheet. Upon that offence being proved to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the accused was convicted. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. The question is whether in view of the second clause of Section 7 (1) of the Act, the trial Court had jurisdiction to convict the accused.2. Section 7 (1) (2) says that,No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence...It would follow that before a person can be tried for any offence punishable under that sub-section, there must be a report in writing of facts ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. A. Rangaswamy Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad741; (1943)2MLJ519
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. Defendant is the appellant and this second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for an injunction directing the defendant to remove a motor shed and a latrine in a portion of the land belonging to the defendant set apart for use as a common road. The property in dispute is situated in Kodaikanal. The plaintiff, the defendant's father and four others owned six adjacent plots in that area. They are marked as plot Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Ex. D. plaintiff is the owner of the plot marked 2 and the defendant's father was the owner of plot marked 3. The plan attached to Ex 'E' is a plan of plots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a portion of plot No. 4 in which the portion in dispute is marked out. The original understanding was that all these six owners should have access to both Bear Shola Road and to Vilpatti Road to the north-east of these plots and it was agreed that a road leaving from Bear Shola Road to Vilpatti Road should be laid through these six plots. The...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal and ors. Vs. M.P. Venkatachalapathi Iyer (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad471; (1943)1MLJ353
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioners ask the Court to revise, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by the respondent.2. The respondent is a merchant carrying on business in Madura. The petitioners are merchants carrying on business in Bombay. On the 7th September, 1940, the respondent wrote to the petitioners offering to purchase 200 pounds of naphthalene at the price of Rs. 12-8-0 per pound. On the 9th September, 1940, the petitioners replied making a counter offer. They were willing to supply the goods at the price of Rs. 13 a pound. By a letter dated 13th September, 1940, the respondent offered to buy 500 pounds of naphthalene at the rate quoted by the petitioners. This offer was accepted by the petitioners in a letter dated 14th September, 1940, and posted in Bombay.3. The Subordinate Judge held that he had juris...
Tag this Judgment!Gundu Venkatalingam Vs. Gundu Mrutyanjayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad541; (1943)1MLJ400
ORDER1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Byers, J., committing the appellant to prison for contempt of Court. The appellant has filed an appeal against the decree passed in a partition suit instituted by his brother, the respondent, and this appeal is pending. When he had been served with' notice of the appeal the respondent applied for an order directing the appellant to furnish security for costs in the event of its being dismissed. This application was based on the allegation that the appellant was alienating his share of the family properties and that if the appeal were dismissed the respondent would not be able to recover his costs. In order to avoid an order for security being passed against him, the appellant gave an undertaking that he would not alienate his interests in any of the properties which were the subject-matter of the appeal. In breach of the undertaking he sold his interests in one property for the sum of Rs. 1,500. This was a clear breach of his underta...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vengannan Chettiar and Sons, Through Managing Partner K.V. Muthukri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad498; (1943)1MLJ362
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is one of limitation. On the 20th April, 1933, the plaintiff lent to the first and second defendants a sum of Rs. 2,000 on the security of a sub-mortgage of three separate mortgages, executed by the third, fourth and fifth defendants respectively in favour of the second defendant, i The first of these mortgages was executed by the third defendant on the 22nd July, 1927, to secure a sum of Rs. 3,500, the second on the 5th January, 1923, by the fourth defendant to secure Rs. 750 and the third on the 30th June, 1925, by the fifth defendant to secure Rs. 1,000. On the 29th June, 1937, the plaintiff instituted in the Court of the District Munsiff of Dindigul a suit to recover the amount due to him by the first and second defendants in respect of the sub-mortgage. As he had the right to do, he asked for the sale of the mortgaged property. On the 6th June, 1938, the plaint was returned to him for presentation to the Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Nagati Yedukondalu and anr. Vs. Pedaprolu Suryanarayana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad583; (1943)1MLJ403
Horwill, J.1. In an application by the present trustees of Sri Ramalayam appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 76 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for possession of certain godowns from* the petitioners, who claimed to be the private owners of the temple as well as of the godowns which were the subject of this application, it was held by the lower Court that Sri Ramalayam is a public temple and that the property belongs to the temple and not to the petitioners. In this revision petition the only question is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to decide the question whether the property belongs to the petitioners or to the temple.2. The petitioners rely on a decision of Patanjali Sastri, J., reported in (1940) 52 L.W. 7 I have read a copy of the judgment provided by Mr. Appa Rao and I find that Patanjali Sastri, J., held, in a case where possession was resisted by a tenant claiming to be an occupancy tenant that the Court had no jurisdiction to hand o...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Nandaramdas Atmaram by Agent Hemrajmul Vs. Zulika Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad531; (1943)2MLJ1
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing in effect the suit (O.S. No. 10 of 1940) instituted by the appellant for setting aside an order allowing the claim of the first respondent to certain properties which had been attached before judgment by the appellant in an earlier suit. That suit (O.S. No. 98 of 1938) had been instituted by the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 7,800 due on hundies executed by one Babu Sahib and his three sons. The properties were attached before judgment 0n 8th and 9th April, 1938, and later on 4th August, 1938, the appellant obtained his decree.2. Babu Sahib died in December, 1937. His three sons are respondents 2 to 4.The first respondent is the wife of his eldest son Mydeen Batcha Sahib who is the second respondent here. Her claim, to the property is based on a deed of gift executed by Babu Sahib in her favour on. 27th September, 1937. The properties gifted were of considerable value t...
Tag this Judgment!Gogula Venkanna and ors. Vs. the Panchayat Board, Munagapaka, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad508; (1943)1MLJ399
Somayya, J.1. These cases seem to be directly covered by the express wording of Section 45-B of the Local Boards Act. This section enacts that if a panchayat is superseded, the Provincial Government shall be subject to all the liabilities of the panchayat as on the date of the dissolution or supersession, and it also says that if the panchayat is later on reconstituted, until the date of reconstitution, the Provincial Government will be liable and after that date the reconstituted board will, be liable for all the liabilities of the superseded panchayat. The liability in question in each of these two appeals arose under a decree of Court which the appellants had obtained against the superseded or dissolved panchayat. The lower Courts have, on what they considered to be the intention of the Legislature, refused to apply the plain provisions of the section and have restricted the provisions of Section 45-b to a case where there are assets of the panchayat in the hands of the Provincial G...
Tag this Judgment!Mokarula Pitchayya Vs. Beggavarapu Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1943
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ404
Somayya, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of the same transaction which was an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The contract was executed by Pattabhiramayya, the father of defendants 1 to 3 in second appeal No. 214. The appellant in the two second appeals was the fourth defendant in O.S. ' No. 293 of 1939 out of which S. A. No. 214 of 1939 arises and was the first defendant in the other suit. The first suit was for specific performance of the agreement executed by the father of defendants 1 to 3. The fourth defendant is a person in whose name the property had been placed by Pattabhiramayya and the finding of both the Courts is that it was merely a nominal transaction not intended to pass any title to the fourth defendant. In fact the agreement executed by Pattabhiramayya recites that for certain reasons, the property had been placed in the name of the fourth defendant and that a proper conveyance would be got executed by the fourth defendant. The main defenc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »