Chennai Court November 1944 Judgments
Seetha Bai and anr. Vs. Narasimha Shet and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad306; (1945)1MLJ60
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appeal arises out of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act started by one Narasimha Shet, the grand-uncle of one Gopalakrishna, one of the two minors for whose properties a guardian was sought to be appointed. The other minor was Kamalaksha. The minors are the sons of one K. Ramachandra Krishna Shet who died on the 5th November, 1941, leaving behind him three widows, Sita Bai, Shanta Bai and another Sita Bai. Kamalaksha is his son by Shanta Bai and Gopalakrishna is his son by Sita Bai, the fourth respondent in the lower Court. The deceased owned some house property besides a, jewellery business. Admittedly it was joint family property in the hands of his sons. Narasimha Shet stated in his petition that all the properties of the late Ramachandra Krishna Shet devolved on his two sons by right of survivorship. There were no adult male members in the family. There were quarrels between the three widows and therefore a guardian was sought to be appointed f...
Tag this Judgment!Doddeti Subbayya Vs. Mutyala Kesavalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ287
Horwill, J.1. The appellant brought a case under Sections 379 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and another. The prosecution case was closed on the 30th October, 1941; and on that date the magistrate wrote on the docket of his diary: The second accused is discharged under Section 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is framed against the first accused.... This was signed by the magistrate. He proceeded with the enquiry against 'the first accused and eventually, on the 24th January, 1942, committed the first accused to Sessions. The present suit was filed on the 25th January, 1943, which would be the last day of limitation if the accused was discharged on the 24th January, 1942; but would be out of time if the accused was discharged on the 30th October, 1941. The trial Court held that he was discharged on the 30th October, 1941; because the note of the magistrate shows that he was; whereas the appellate Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Oorpayil Manjole Mundathottil Achuthan Nayar Vs. Oorpayil Mundathottil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad438; (1945)2MLJ13
Horwill, J.1. The respondent sued for the eviction of the appellant, his tenant, on the ground that within the meaning of Section 14(5) of the Malabar Tenancy-Act he required the land bona fide for his own cultivation. Nine issues were raised and considered by the trial court, which conditionally dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved that he required the suit property bona fide for his own cultivation. This question was carefully considered by the learned District Munsif. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge pointed out that the learned District Munsif had wrongly considered whether the landlord had any necessity for the land instead of considering whether he needed the land bona fide. The learned Subordinate Judge, without any further discussion of the matter, except to say that there was nothing in the case to rebut or displace the evidence of P.W. 1 as to his bona fides, decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. Three lines of discussion for dec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chittoori Potharaju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1944
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ457
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of a contravention of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 on the footing that the sale by the petitioner of his beedies at a price more than 20 per cent, above the price for which they were purchased amounted to offences under Sections 6(1) and 13(1) of the Ordinance. The prosecution case was that the petitioner had sold a bundle of one type of beedies at a price which was 41 per cent, more than the purchase price and another bundle of beedies at a price which was 25 per cent above the purchase price. The arithmetical calculations made by the lower Court are correct and although there is no evidence with regard to the cost of production the assumption that the whole-sale purchase price would, at any rate, not be below the cost of production is justified. I do not accept the contention advanced for the petitioner that he was entitled...
Tag this Judgment!The Goundars of Vilangathur Village Represented by Velayudha Goundan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad234; (1945)1MLJ300
Somayya, J.1. This is a case in which the Subordinate Judge has allowed questions which ought never to have been allowed. The suit was by the Vannia or Goundar community to have certain processions and worship carried out in the usual manner: and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in their worship. The plaint is a very simple one. It sets out that in this village of Vilangathur there were eighty houses out of which the Vannias live in about forty houses, while the other communities including the Odayars live in the remaining houses, that the villagers used to perform festivals to all the deities in the village other than the Perumal temple once a year between the months of February-March and August-September. Each of the festivals lasts about 7 to 10 days and various details are given as to how the festivals were being conducted. Then paragraph 7 says that till about July-August 1937, the members of both the communities were offering worship to the deit...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajagopala Chetty Vs. A. Kesava Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad126; (1945)1MLJ57
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides Section 52. The City Civil Court which tried the suit held that it did not and this opinion was shared by Somayya, J., on appeal. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Judge.2. We can see no room to doubt the correctness of the judgments below. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens is couched in very wide terms.3. Section 100 was amended by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929, when the following words were added to the second paragraph:and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge.The argument is that as the mortgagee in, this case too...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Naidu Vs. Venkatasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ154
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On 7th June, 1929, by Ex. P-5, one Karuppannan Servai sold the suit property to the defendant, who is the appellant here. Part of the consideration was the discharge of two mortgages of 29th March, 1925 (Ex. P-2) and 8th September, 1926 (Ex. P-3). Karuppannan Servai refused to register the document. The registration did not finally take place until 30th January, 1930. In the meanwhile, only a few days after the sale by Karuppannan Servai to the defendant, he sold the land to the plaintiff on 26th June, 1929, the consideration for the sale being a sum of money paid in cash and the discharge of the two mortgages referred to in the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Karuppannan Servai very wisely seems to have insisted on the discharge of these mortgages before he would execute the sale deed, and on 23rd June, 1929, and 25th June, 1929, respectively the two mortgages were discharged. The question that arises in this suit, is whether the plaintiff is su...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. Narra Gopalakrishniah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad66; (1945)1MLJ17
1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question whether the recent decision of the Privy Council in Mahomed Siddique Yousuf v. Official Assignee of Calcutta (1878) 10 Ch. D. 3 applies to orders of adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act as well as to orders of adjudication under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. To appreciate the full effect of the judgment in that case a short statement of the facts, on which it is founded is necessary. One Ali Mahomed Hashi was adjudicated an insolvent by 'the High Court of Calcutta. It was alleged and found that he had committed several acts of insolvency. One of the acts alleged against him was the granting of a fraudulent preference to a creditor (the appellant in the Privy Council). To this creditor he had assigned within three months of the petition asking for his adjudication a decree which he had obtained for Rs. 6,750 and interest. The assignee had hot been given notice of the application for adjudication and had not been ma...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad296; (1945)1MLJ53
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for an order cancelling the leave granted to the respondent to appeal in forma pauperis. The petitioner in O.P. No. 258 of 1942 on the Original Side of this Court applied for letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband R.P.P. Adikesavalu Chettiar. The respondent entered a caveat and opposed the application. Her opposition was unsuccessful and the Court ordered letters of administration to issue to the petitioner. The respondent then applied to be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis against this order. She swore an affidavit in which she stated that all the property she possessed was clothing worth Rs. 40. The petitioner had no knowledge then of the respondent's financial position and as the Government Solicitor did not object to a declaration of the respondent's pauperism, she was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. It has since come to the knowledge of the petitioner that on the 8th February, 1944, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sinna Ranga Boyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad472; (1945)2MLJ95
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, the convictions for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside because in the opinion of the Sessions Judge, there was no proof that any more than three persons took part in beating the complainant. The Sessions Judge, although he set aside the convictions, remanded the case for fresh disposal, since he thought that the evidence showed that offences under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, in respect of which no charges were framed had been committed. In my judgment the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case for fresh disposal. If the petitioners are now to be tried for offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, they would be being tried on the same facts as the facts which formed the subject-matter of the case under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »