Chennai Court September 1943 Judgments
Beeram Ankalu Reddi Vs. Beeram Chinna Ankalu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad161; (1943)2MLJ557
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, the first defendant in O.S. No. 6 of 1942 on the file of the District Court of Cuddapah seeks to have the passing of the final decree in that suit stayed pending disposal of C.M.A. No. 369 of 1943 filed against the order in I.A. No. 17 of 1943 dismissing his application for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree passed in that suit. It was a suit for recovery of money due on a hypothecation deed.2. The main contention of the respondent is that the application is not maintainable and that this Court has no jurisdiction to stay the passing of the final decree.3. The petition has been filed under Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 41, Rule 5 runs thus:An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the app...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad139; (1943)2MLJ615
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition came on for, hearing before one of us in the first instance and was referred to a Division Bench as it raises questions of some difficulty and importance regarding the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.; -2. The petitioner is the zamindar of Venkatagiri and the respondents are some of the tenants of Tirumur, a village in the zamindari. They applied to the Sub-Collector of Gudur for relief under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 in respect of the arrears of rent payable by them, depositing certain amounts Whicji, they claimed to be the rents due to the petitioner for fasli 1347 as required by Section 15(4) of the Act. The zamindar contended that, as the tenants held their lands on what is known as the waram tenure, they were liable to pay rent in kind being a moiety of the gross produce of their respective holdings, and that, theref re the deposit of money on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alfred Paul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad166; (1943)2MLJ597
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 353, Indian Penal Code and reducing the fine from Rs. 100 to Rs. 50.2. The prosecution case is that the complainant, a telegraph peon, had gone to the office of the United Motors, Coimbatore, and that as he passed the gate on Ms return from the office, the accused, a telephone clerk of that company slapped him on the face. After enquiry, the Sub-Inspector of Police, in his report to the Sub-Magistrate of Coimbatore on the investigation made in the case, said that the assault was exaggerated, that the complainant was not very anxious about the case and that under these circumstances and in accordance with the orders of the Inspector of Police he had treated the case as a mistake of fact. With this referred charge-sheet he sent a copy of the records, which disclosed that a number of witnesses had been examined who supporte...
Tag this Judgment!Tangirala Venkateswarlu Vs. Kumbham Lakshmanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad365
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment filed by the inamdar of some 20 acres of land in the village of Lallagaruvu in the Kistna District against a large number of defendants who have resisted the suit on the ground that they have the right of permanent occupancy. The appeal has come to me under Clause 36, Letters Patent, and the following two questions have been formulated for my decision:(1) Whether in a suit by a landholder of a minor inam to eject the tenants from the holding, the burden is on the plaintiff to make out at fight to evict by proving that the grant included bath the melwaram and the kudivaram interests or that the tenants or their predecessors were let into possession by the inamdar under a terminable lease or whether the bur-den is on the tenants to prove that they have occupancy rights?(2) Whichever way the burden lies, whether the burden has been discharged in the present case by the party on whom it lies?The appellant who is the inamdar, contend...
Tag this Judgment!Rajula Pullaya Vs. Sri Raja Kessara Chenna Krishnarao Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad257
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the zamindar of Ratnavaram in the Court of the Sub-Collector of Bezwada. It was a suit for rent filed against two defendants, and so far as the descriptive matter in the plaint itself is concerned, it was filed against them on the ground that they owed it as pattadars of patta No. 20 of the village of Ratnavaram. Attached to the plaint was a schedule in which a description of this land was given. Before the suit was tried the plain-tiff had realised that the particulars of the description were inaccurate, and in fact he alleged that by a clerical error they had been copied from a patta, also No. 20, relating to the village not of Ratnavaram but of Thallabella. Plaintiff accordingly applied to the Sub-Collector for leave to amend the schedule. The Sub-Collector refused to grant leave. Plaintiff then applied under Section 205, Madras Estates Land Act, to have this order revised by the District Collector of Kistna. In February 1940 th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Chinaramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad438
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 17, Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 20 of 1933, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The case against him was that he did not take out a licence as required under Section 4 (1) of that Act in respect of a place used by him for storing, pressing and processing of tobacco at Inkollu. It is clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the petitioner had such a place at Inkollu and that tobacco was being pressed there. What is stated by the petitioner is that under the explanation to Section 4 (1), he need not take out a licence if the tobacco was his own and therefore, in the absence of any definite evidence to show that the tobacco was not his own, he ought not to have been convicted.2. It is true that there is no positive and direct evidence to show that the tobacco that was found in that factory, when P. Ws. 1 and 2 inspected was not the tobacco grown on the land of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narasimha Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad125; (1943)2MLJ500
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was on his own plea of guilt convicted for an offence punishable under Rule 90(3) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with simple imprisonment for one month in default. He was found guilty of having hoarded small coins. The coins were seized from his house by the Sub-Inspector and they were directed to be confiscated. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself has pleaded guilty, I do not think I will be justified in interfering with the conviction. With regard to the sentence it is not excessive. As regards the order of confiscation it is stated that under Section 2, Sub-section (3), Clause (iii) of the Defence of India Act, rules made under Sub-section (1) may provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of any property in respect of which such contravention, attempt or abetment as is referred to in the preceding clause has been committed and that consequently Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, h...
Tag this Judgment!Yedlapalli Mangamma and ors. Vs. Maharajah of Pithapuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad253
King, J.1. This is an appeal brought by defendants 17 to 20 in a suit which originally began as a small cause suit filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram in 1936. It was returned by the Subordinate Judge for presentation before the revenue Court and this order was confirmed on revision by the High Court. It was consequently presented again before the Deputy Collector, Amalapuram, in January 1939. The basis of the suit was an assertion by the plaintiff that all the defendants were trespassers on certain land belonging to him. Some were trespassers in the possibly technical sense that they had been ryots and they had lost that status because their holdings had been sold in discharge of the arrears of revenue which they owed. Others were trespassers in the more usual sense of the word. The learned Deputy Collector held that the suit before him was barred by limitation. There was an appeal by the plaintiff to the learned District Judge of East Godavari. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.P. Thangavelu Chetti Vs. K.S.R. Chockalingam Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad129; (1943)2MLJ572
Vere Mockett, Officiating C.J.1. The appellant is the insolvent. The first respondent is one Chockalingam Chetti, his cousin brother. The second respondent, the Official Assignee of Madras, is formally on the record. The Official Assignee on the 22nd December, 1942, took out an application for directions before the learned Insolvency Judge with regard to the disposition of properties which 'according to the insolvent and also to Chockalingam Chetty, represent properties which, under an oral partition, were allotted to the insolvent's share' as well as other properties. One of those properties is to be found in item 4 of Schedule A which is a half share in 9 Devathi Pilliar Koil Street, Pulicat. With that house, I am concerned and I will call that house 'the Pulicat House.' The learned Judge on the 11th January, 1943, directed the Official Assignee to sell the properties in the schedules to the application before him and the Pulicat House was included. The Official Assignee came before ...
Tag this Judgment!Vahidunnissa Saheb Vs. Mohammad Mahaboob Ali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad225
ORDERByers, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that after the presentation of an application under S. i, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, the board was dissolved. Although the application under Section 4 had not then been disposed of, the learned District Munsif held that there was no application pending before a legally constituted board and therefore Section 25 of the Act ceased to operate. He accordingly refused to allow stay of execution.2. When once an application has been made under Section i of the Act, all execution proceedings are automatically stayed under Section 25, which enacts that execution or other proceedings shall not be proceeded with until the board has dismissed the application. Therefore the only way in which the ban under Section 25 on execution can be lifted is by the dismissal of the application under Section i. It is obvious that the dissolution of the board cannot operate as a dismissal of the .application in the absence of any statutory pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »