Chennai Court February 1943 Judgments
The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams Committee, by Its Commissioner Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad466; (1943)1MLJ388
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference arises out of an appeal to this Court from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, dismissing a suit instituted by the Tirumalai-Tirupathi Devasthanams Committee against the trustees of the Sri Venkataramana Devara Bhandaram, a temple situate at Moolki within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court. The Tirupati temple, which lies a little over a hundred miles from Madras, is one of the famous temples of South India and is held in the greatest veneration by all Hindus. From time immemorial the trustees of the Moolki temple have maintained therein a box for the reception of offerings, usually of money or jewels, which devotees wish to make to the deity of the Tirupati temple. The duties of the respondents in this connection are to see that the collection box is properly kept, from time to time to count the offerings placed therein and then to hold them in safe custody until such time as they can conveniently be deliver...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Parankusa Naidu Vs. Ayyanna Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad517
ORDERKing, J.1. This petition raises the vexed point as to what constitutes the 'final order' on an execution application presented in accordance with law. The order, which is the subject-matter of the petition, was passed on 23rd December 1937 upon an application filed on 2lst June 1937. If that order is a final order, this appeal must succeed as the present application would then be in time. It has been held by both Courts below that the order is not final. The full facts are that the application was made on 2lst June 1937 in the Court of Small Causes at Trichinopoly and was endorsed by the Court saying, 'Vakil has no power, Returned. Time seven days.' In fact the application was not taken away from the Court, but allowed to remain in the office and subsequently in December an order was passed rejecting it. Now it is clear to my mind that the order rejecting an application of this kind, because the applicant will not comply with certain requisitions is a final order. It is an order w...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. N. Venkatarama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad542; (1943)1MLJ342
Mockett, J.1. The Provincial Government appeals against the acquittal of one Venkatarama Naidu for an offence under Clause 6 of the Defence of India Rules. It is alleged that offences under sub-clauses (e),(f),(g) and (K) were committed. The accused made a speech on the 26th April, 1942, at Pedda Kammapalle at a peasants' conference at which a thousand people or so were present, and it is said that the speech involved bringing into hatred and contempt, or excited dissatisfaction towards His Majesty's Government, that it went to promote feeling of enmity and hatred between the ryots and zamindars and proprietors who are subjects of His Majesty; that it caused fear and alarm to the public and that it influenced the conduct of the public to the efficient prosecution of the present war. The speech in my view taken as a whole unquestionably went far beyond the bounds of legitimate discussion and criticism. It begins by a description of the zamindars as devils and cheats and thieves, and it ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mahammadhu Sahib Rowther Vs. Muthu Samban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1943
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ318
Mockett, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Tenkasi. The District Munsiff refused to set aside an order of the Panchayat Court of Tenkasi restoring to the file Suit No. 242 of 1938, filed in that Village Panchayat Court. It appears that a Suit No. 241 of 1938 was also filed by the petitioner against the same defendants-respondents. Suit No. 241 of 1938 was decreed ex parte and it is admitted that an application to set aside that ex parte decree was dismissed. It is clear from the record that these suits appeared side by side and day by day together. The decree in Suit No. 242 of 1938 was passed on the 30th January, 1939. Nevertheless on the 23rd March, 1942, that is to say, three years and two months after the ex parte decree, a petition was filed before the Panchayat Court seeking to set aside the decree on the ground that the summons had not been served. This the Court did without giving any reasons. On a revision petition under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Kovuri Lakshmamma Vs. Nagineni Venkatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad731; (1943)2MLJ173
Somayya, J.1. Both these second appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of the suit properties on the footing that they originally belonged to her father one Dasari Naidu. According to the plaintiff, Dasari Naidu left a widow Mangamma and four daughters, The plaintiff and. the first defendant are two of these daughters. It appears that Dasari Naidu; was living with his sister's sons and one of the sisters. He had also a brother Rama Naidu who had predeceased him leaving a widow Parvathamma. Dasari Naidu had another sister whose sons were Poliah and Venkatayya. Yet another sister of Dasari Naidu was one Chen-chamma. She was also living with Dasari Naidu. After Dasari Naidu's death disputes seem to have arisen between the following four sets of persons: (1) Dasari Naidu's widow Mangamma, (2) Rama Naidu's widow Parvathamma, (3) Poliah and his younger brother Venkatayya, (4) Chenchamma and (5) Perumaliah, the son of another sister of Dasari Naidu. It appea...
Tag this Judgment!Manasseh Film Co., by Partners A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and His Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad239
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is a firm called Manasseh Film Company and its only partners are A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and his undivided minor son Soundararajan. The suit has been brought for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4500 which the plaintiffs paid to the defendants - Gemini Pictures Circuit - in connexion with the hiring of a picture called Baktha Naradar which was being produced by the defendants at Madras and which the plaintiffs wanted to exhibit in the Federated Malay States, Singapore and Penang. The hiring was to be for a period of three years in consideration of a payment of Rs. 9000. It is stated in the plaint that the understanding between the parties was that the delivery of the picture was to be on 1st March 1942. Owing to the outbreak of war between Japan and Great Britain, the contract became impossible of performance and hence the plaintiffs seek a return of the sum paid by them together with interest, which they have roughly fixed at Rs. 5050, apparently ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Rajagopala Chettiar, Trustee of Chinna Ramanuja Kootam Vs. D. Anj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad558; (1943)1MLJ358
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the trustee of a public charity known as the Chinna Ramanuja Kootam Chathram and sued to recover possession of a house which had been dedicated to the trust. The defence was that the trust had lost, title to it by reason of adverse possession and in second appeal this plea was accepted.2. In 1897 one Malayaperumalswami Chettiar became the trustee and until 1903 performed the duties of his office. From then onwards Malayaperumalswami, who was joint with his four sons, treated the property as belonging to the family. On the 14th March, 1917, he and three of his sons, the fourth being dead, mortgaged the property as the owners thereof. Subsequently two of the sons purported to surrender their interests in the property to their father and their brother Sitharama. On the 22nd December, 1920, Malayaperumalswami and Sitharama raised a further loan on the security of the property. On the 9th March, 1928, the property was attached by the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Thacharakkal Kannoth Areekastanoth Kuttu Alias Kuttiammu and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad474; (1943)1MLJ296
Somayya, J. 1. The sole question in this revision petition is whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs on their plaint is correct. The plaintiffs are the junior members of a putravakasam tavazhi. The main allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 12 were members of a putravakasam tavazhi that the second defendant was the karnavathi and manager of the putravakasam tavazhi and the third defendant, though the eldest son of the second defendant had never the karnavasthanam nor the right of management. The management of the properties was as specified in the gift deed granted by one K. Kuttiammo Haji the husband of the second defendant and was in the second defendant and not in the third who it is said lives in his wife's, house. Then reference is made to a decree in S.C.S. No. 88 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tellicherry where defendants 2 to 4. in the present action were alone impleaded and it is stated that the present third defen...
Tag this Judgment!Seelam Nagamma and anr. Vs. Reddem Lingareddi Alias Ramalingareddi Lat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad437; (1943)1MLJ364
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. A question of importance relating to bandhu succession under the Mitakshara system of inheritance has been the subject of two conflicting decisions in this Court and it is for the purpose of resolving the conflict that this second appeal has been placed before the Full Bench. The conflicting decisions are those to be found in Chinna Pichu Aiyangar v. Padmanabha Aiyangar : (1920)39MLJ417 and Kesar Singh v. Secretary of State for India : AIR1926Mad881 .2. The last male owner of the estate involved in this second appeal was one M. Chenchi Reddi, who died long ago leaving a widow Chennamma. She took the estate as his heir, and died on 24th October, 1935. On her death, the estate devolved on the nearest reversioner. Who among the several claimants is the nearest, is the question which the Court has to determine. The competition was between three sets of claimants. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 claimed to be M. Chenchi Reddi's father's father's son's sons, that is to say, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Commissioner Vs. J.S. Chinnoy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad123; (1943)2MLJ431
Horwill, J.1. The question is whether the deduction for repairs referred to in Section 82(2) of the District Municipalities Act is to be estimated on the rental of a house together with its site or on some hypothetical rental for the house alone apart from its site. The learned District Munsiff', from whose decree this petition has been preferred, held the former view, which was that put forward by the respondent in his suit for a refund of the excess amount paid to the Municipality which refused to take the site into consideration in making the deduction.2. It is fairly clear that throughout the Act buildings are distinguished from their sites; and that gives room for an argument that this deduction in the case of buildings must refer only to the structure of the building, apart from the site on which it stands or its compound; but I think upon a reading of the whole of Section 82(2) that the learned District Munsiff was right. That section does not say that there shall be a deduction...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »