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.
Kilaparti Appalanarasamma Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad224; (1945)1MLJ22
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 21st June, 1937, the Municipal Commissioner of Vizagapatam served upon the plaintiff a notice to remove within seven days a tiled house, pial and steps which it was said encroached upon ' municipal land,' by which was meant a public street. The plaintiff denied that there was any encroachment, but as he feared that the municipality would carry out its threat to remove the alleged obstruction if he did not comply with the notice, he filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Vizagapatam the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He asked for a declaration that the site marked A, B, C and D on the plan attached to the plaint belonged to him and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the municipality from removing the structures on the land. The municipality was made the sole defendant. The Municipal Commissioner, on its behalf, pleaded that the Government was a necessary party and as the result the Provincial' Government, repres...
T.S. Ramanatha Ayyar and ors. Vs. S. Abdul Salam Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad179; (1945)1MLJ67
Bell, J.1. In this appeal, the respondents (decree-holders) filed a suit on a usufructuary mortgage claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000 with interest. In due course a preliminary decree in the usual form was granted and was followed in April, 1937, by a final decree, which related that as the money ordered to be paid under the preliminary decree had not been paid the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof should be sold in order to satisfy the decree. It was further ordered that the balance, if any, should be paid to the judgment-debtor or other person entitled to receive the same. In the execution proceedings which followed, the decree-holder asked for an order that the property should be sold. The judgment-debtor, however, claimed that the property should be sold only after allowance had been made for compensation due to him for acts of waste committed by the decree-holder or his legal representatives after the decree had been passed. The estimate for this compensation was some Rs....
Arunachalam Goundan and ors. Vs. Chinnadorai Alias Ramalinga Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ210
ORDERHappell, J.1. This case arises out of an order made under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Vellore. In his petition praying that the Magistrate should take action under Section 145, the respondent who may be referred to as the 'A party' stated that he had been dispossessed by the 'B party'on the 20th July, 1943. The Magistrate, who declared in his final order that the A party was entitled to possession, issued a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the 19th November, 1943. Under Sub-sections 4 and 6 of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate is bound to issue an order declaring the party which he finds to have been in possession on the date of the preliminary order to be entitled to remain in possession until evicted in due course of law, provided that if the other party has been wrongfully dispossessed within two months of the preliminary order he may treat that party a...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Verajlal Sheth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad158; (1945)1MLJ163
Byers, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are that the house occupied by the accused was searched by the police acting under Section 5(1) of the Madras Gaming Act on the night of 25th September, 1943, and a considerable quantity of betting slips, registers, telegrams, calculation sheets, etc., was seized. The accused was charged with keeping a common gaining house punishable under Section 8 of the Act, the particular form of wagering being what is known as the New York Cotton Speculation Business in which wagers were laid on the New York closing prices each day. The exact method followed does not appear in the evidence, but a detailed description of the modus operandi is to be found at pages 976 and 977 of the report in Ram Pralap Nemani v. Emperor I.L.R. (1912) Cal. 968. The accused was acquitted and in this appeal by the Crown against the acquittal the only point which arises for decision is whether ' gaming ' as defined in Section 3 of the Madras Gaming Act includes wage...
Balireddi Vissanna Alias Viswanadham and ors. Vs. Venkayala Appalanara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad113
Wadsworth, J.1. When a mortgage in favour of A and B is superseded by another mortgage in favour of A alone, the second debt is not in favour of the same creditor as the first and ban not be treated as a renewal, for the purpose of the explanation to Section 8, Madras Act, 4 of 1938, The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Vatakkayil Muyyarikkandi Kunhi Pakki Vs. Valiya Muthuvana Cheeru and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad185; (1945)1MLJ157
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of rent in the years 1931-1932 and 1932-1933 and enforcement of a charge in respect of that rent. The main question in issue in the suit was whether the appellant was the landlord, or whether the respondents 3 and 4 the donees from a member of the appellant's family were the landlords. The tenants, respondents 1 and 2, had attorned to respondents 3 and 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court confirmed that decree. A second appeal was pending in this Court when Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force. The respondents 1 and 2 filed an application M.P. No. 582 of 1938 in the trial Court in which they impleaded both the rival claimants to the landlord's title and alleging that they held under present respondents 3 and 4, they made a deposit of the rent for faslis 1346 a,nd 1347, and notwithstanding the objection of the present appellant, they obtained a declaration, that the prior arrears were wiped of...
D. Hajee Abdulla Sahib Vs. Shaffee Muhammad Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ196
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In a suit filed by the appellant on the Original Side of this Court in which he asked for a decree for the dissolution of an alleged partnership and the taking of accounts, the defendants (the respondents) preferred a counterclaim. They denied that the plaintiff was a member of the partnership. They averred that he had acted as their commission agent and was indebted to them in this connection in the sum of Rs. 1,84,542-15-7. Consequently they asked for an account. The plaintiff's claim to be a partner was rejected by the learned trial Judge (Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.) and his decision has been confirmed by this Bench on appeal. The learned Judge granted the respondents' claim for an account and consequently passed a preliminary decree for the taking of the accounts. After this had been done, the respondents decided that they would not proceed with their counter-claim and accordingly they asked the Court to dismiss it. The appellant objected on the grou...
Lingappa Bhandary and ors. Vs. Yamunamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ2
1. We do not feel it necessary to interfere with the decision of the lower Court. The question whether land is or is not agricultural is largely a question of fact and we consider that the term 'agricultural' as used in proviso C to Section 3 of Act IV of 1938 must be read in the sense in which it is used in the relevant section of the District Municipalities Act and not in any narrow sense which might be spelt out of the definition of 'agriculturist' in Section 3(ii)(a) of Act IV of 1938.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
M.T. Philip Vs. Muhammad Siddique Adam by Agent Abdul Shukar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad127; (1945)1MLJ50
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. In order to understand the question referred the facts must be stated.2. The respondent filed S.C.S. No. 8410 of 1941 against one T.C. Krishnan, the proprietor of a hotel called the Empire Hotel, for money alleged to be due to him? The respondent obtained an order for attachment before judgment of six fans said to be on the hotel premises. When the bailiff went to the hotel, there were no fans to be found. The respondent then applied for the attachment of six electric fans 'removed and kept at No. 15, Perianna Maistri Street.' The application was granted and the bailiff proceeded to No. 15, Perianna Maistry Street, where he found two electric fans. The applicant objected to the attachment on the ground that the fans were his. He alleged that they had been sold to him by Mahdi Ali, the third defendant in the respondent's suit. The bailiff nevertheless seized the fans and this...
Dhara Rama Subbayya and anr. Vs. Annavarappu Lakshmi Narasimham and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad246; (1945)1MLJ70
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Appeal No. 267 of 1943.--The appellants are respondents 12 and 13 in I.A. No. 142 of 1940 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali. They are the legal representatives of the first defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1937 on the file of that Court. It was a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties with mesne profits. A preliminary decree was passed on 17th March, 1939, and the properties were taken possession of shortly thereafter. There were two appeals to this Court against the preliminary decree which were both dismissed on 4th February, 1942. In the meanwhile, I.A. No. 142 of 1940 was filed on 9th February, 1940, for ascertaining the mesne profits. A commissioner was appointed to ascertain the same. After taking evidence and after examining the documents, he submitted a report on 14th November, 1941. The learned Subordinate Judge on receipt of the report heard the objections of both sides and gave a decree and it is against this decree for mesne pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »