Chennai Court November 1944 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Successor and Joint Manager Pandan Chemminiyam Achuthan Vs. Pandan Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad279; (1945)1MLJ240
Horwill, J.1. The dispute between the parties is whether the respondent is entitled to compensation under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act for a shed erected by him on land leased to him by the appellant. The lease was in writing, from which it would appear that the purpose of the lease was the storing of tiles on the land for sale. A shed was to be erected for this purpose and was to be removed on the expiry of the lease. It is not disputed that if, in fact, this lease comes within the mischief of the Act, the tenant would be entitled to compensation for the erection of the shed as an improvement, despite the fact that he contracted to remove it upon the expiry of the term of the lease. Both the Courts below held that the respondent was entitled to the value of his improvements.2. All the decided cases support the case of the appellant that the respondent is not entitled to compensation. Not a single case has been cited in which it has been held that a tenant is e...
In Re: Bhujam Sriramulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ162
ORDERHappell, J.1. The question to be decided is whether the appeal lies to this Court or whether it should be filed in the Court of the District Judge of Chittoor. The appellant valued his suit at Rs. 3,100, but the learned Subordinate Judge being of opinion that in addition to the fee for the declaratory relief an ad valorem fee on a valuation of Rs. 5,862-6-2 had to be paid, gave time for payment of the fee on the value fixed by him and as the fee was not paid, rejected the plaint. The appeal now in question has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the plaint.2. Section 13 of the Madras Civil Courts Act provides that ' Appeals from decrees of Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Court except when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 5,000 in which case the appeal shall lie to the High Court.' And it has been long settled that the money value of the suit fixes the jurisdiction for appeal and not the amount or value of the...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Karumuri Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad331; (1945)1MLJ155
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent was charged in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Narsapur with an offence punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. His father has a shop at Narsapur in which he sells matches retail. On the 22nd April, 1943, a peon of the Tashildar at Narsapur went to this shop to buy some matches. The respondent was in charge of the shop and told the would-be customer that he had no matches in stock. This was untrue. In fact, there were large stocks of matches on the premises and additional large stocks in a godown belonging to the proprietor. On the 9th January, 1943, the Collector of West Godavari notified an order, Clause 1 of which stated that no person selling matches should withhold them from sale to any person on demand and on offer of the price fixed by the Government of India in that behalf so long as he possessed saleable stock. This notification purported to be made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of...
K. Gopalakrishnayya Vs. Vadlamudi Subba Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad168; (1945)1MLJ161
1. This is in some way an unfortunate case. The petitioner filed a Small Cause Suit No. 4388 of 1942 in Madras. After some discussion, the learned Small Cause Court Judge made the following order:It is ordered that the plaint be returned for re-presentation to the proper Court and the costs of this suit shall abide the result of the suit.2. I question the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to have made the order in so far as it relates to costs. There is no doubt that under Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has jurisdiction in suits before it to determine ' by whom or out of what property and to what extent.' such costs are to be paid and to ' give necessary directions for the purpose.' There is equally no doubt that an appellate Court when remitting a case to an inferior Court can make any order with regard to costs. In this case, the Small Cause Court, Madras, appears to have directed the District Munsiff's Court, Kavali, in the following terms:You will, in this suit b...
In Re: Vadakke Valappal Ammotty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ389
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Tellicherry of an offence punishable under Section 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause 3(1) of the Foodgrains Control Order and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of North Malabar confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentences to the period of imprisonment already undergone and fines of Rs. 25 and Rs. 50 respectively.2. The change against the petitioners was that they had purchased 86 bags of paddy without a licence and so had contravened Clause 3(1) of the Foodgrains Control Order. The Joint Magistrate was of opinion that they had made the purchase for purposes of trade, but the learned Sessions Judge considered their case from the point of view that the purchase was for their own use or for their own use and that of other villagers. He confirmed the convfctions, because, in his opinion, a purchase of grain i...
Duvvuru Lakshminarasamma and ors. Vs. Mandala Swami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad156; (1945)1MLJ37
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Shahabuddin, J., refusing to grant a certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act. The appellants desired to appeal to the Federal Court against an order passed by the learned Judge on the revision petition. The learned Judge held that no question of interpretation of the Government of India Act or any Order in Council made there under arose at the trial and consequently he refused to grant a certificate.2. this Court has no power to interfere. The section says that an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in British India, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Act or an Order in Council made thereunder. The order of Shahabuddin, J., was the order of the High Court and he alone could grant the certificate.3. The appeal is dismissed....
The Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madras Vs. Lax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad430; (1945)1MLJ259
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The plaintiffs are junior members of a tarwad, who sought to avoid a decree passed against a junior member of the family and the karnavan personally and against the karnavan as representative of the tarwad. They alleged that the karnavan did not represent them in that suit; but they also gave reasons why they would not be bound by the decree even if he was the karnavan and represented the tarwad. So it would seem that they wished their case to be discussed both on the basis that the karnavan did not represent them in that suit and on the basis that he did. No court-fee was paid to have the decree set aside; and they sought a declaration that the decree was not binding on them. The first Court held that the 'plaintiffs had not paid sufficient court-fee; for it was necessary to set aside the decree to grant them all the reliefs they prayed for. The plaint was therefore rejected. As the rejection of a plaint is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) of the Civil Proce...
Sri Balusu Butchi Sarvarayudu, Proprietor of Kapileswarapuram and Kasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad277; (1945)1MLJ332
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this civil miscellaneous appeal arises, contending that he had made the deposit of rent required of him by Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. applied to the Revenue Court to stay the sale of his holding. The application was dismissed and the land sold. He thereupon brought the present suit for an injunction to restrain the landholder from taking possession of the land he had purchased in Court auction. An objection was taken by the appellant that the remedy of the plaintiff lay by way of appeal; because the order passed was one under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and so a suit did not lie. That objection was upheld by the trial Court; but in appeal it was held that Section 47 did not apply and that the suit lay.2. Somewhat similar questions have come before this Court on many occasions, the leading case being Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 267. There, it was held that since the Madras Estates Land ...
Ayi Goundan and anr. Vs. Solai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad139; (1945)1MLJ47
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, as amended by the Indian Limitation (Second Amendment) Act, 1927, states that for the execution of a decree or order not provided for by Article 183 or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure the period of limitation shall be three years from the date of the final order passed on an application for execution or on an, application to take some step-in-aid of execution. Before the amendment in 1927 the period commenced from the date of the application. The corresponding article in the Limitation Act of 1877 was Article 179(4), which also made the starting point of limitation the date of the application. One of the cases, to which reference will be made arose under the Act of 1877, some of them under the Act of 1908 before the amendment and some after the amendment. Nothing really turns on this, because for the purpose of answering the question referred it is immaterial whether the starting point is the dat...
Pulingundla Venkatappa Naidu and ors. Vs. Geddam Chinnappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad171; (1945)1MLJ158
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs and they have appealed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor setting aside the decree passed by the District Munsiff of Chittoor in O.S. No. 389 of 1941 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to properties described in the plaint schedule and for recovery of possession of the same. Their case was that the properties were ancestral properties, that the defendant unlawfully trespassed on the lands sometime after their father's death which took place eight years ago, taking advantage of their minority and the illiteracy of their mother. The respondent's case was that the properties had been delivered over to him by the plaintiffs' father under a contract of sale entered into to discharge a prior mortgage debt evidenced by a document executed by the plaintiffs' father and Ors. on 21st January, 1927. The defendant also pleaded that he was entitled to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »