Chennai Court November 1945 Judgments
In Re : Josiah Decruz
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ110
ORDERKuppuswami, Ayyar, J.1. This petition arises out of a prosecution by the Sea Customs Department in respect of an offence punishable under Rule 90-B of the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution case was that gold was exported out of India and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Rule 90-B. It was made an offence only under the Defence of India Rules and Rule 90-B as amended, has a proviso, which runs thus:Provided that where in respect of any contravention of this rule the Customs Collector is of opinion that the penalties provided in the said Act are inadequate he may make a complaint to a Magistrate having jurisdiction....2. It is urged that in this case the person who filed the complaint is not the proper person who can file the complaint as per that proviso. It is admitted that the complaint was filed by a person who answers to the description ' Customs Collector ' as defined in Section 3 (c) of the Sea Customs Act. But what is urged is that the person wh...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Kotagiri Madhavarao Bahadur, Zamindar and ors. Vs. Vutukuru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad431; (1946)1MLJ287
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a difficult question of law. In order to understand the position we have to go back to the year 1921. In that year the zamindar of Gampalagudem filed a suit, O.S. No. 352 of 1921, in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada for a declaration that the Government had illegally enfranchised the lands referred to in the plaint. They asked for an injunction restraining the Government, the first defendant, from collecting quit rent from the second and third defendants in whose favour a patta had been granted by the Government. Against the tenants the plaintiff asked for a decree for possession of the lands and mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that the lands were the subject-matter of a post-settlement service inam granted to the predecessor-in-title of the second and third defendants. The Government defended the suit on the ground that the inam was in fact a pre-settlement inam and consequentlythere had been a lawful enfranchise...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jesiah Decruz
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad242
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This petition arises out of a prosecution by the Sea Customs Department in respect of an offence punishable under Rule 90B, Defence of India Rules. The prosecution case was that gold was exported out of India and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Rule 90B. It was made an offence only under the Defence of India Rules and Rule 90B, as amended, has a proviso, which runs thus:Provided that where in respect of any contravention of this rule the Customs Collector is of opinion that the penalties provided by the said Act are inadequate, he may make a complaint to a Magistrare having jurisdiction....It is urged that in this ease the person who filed the complaint is not the proper person who can file the complaint as per that proviso. It is admitted that the complaint was filed by a person who answers to the description 'Customs Collector' as defined in Section 3(c), Sea Customs Act. But what is urged is that the person who signed the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Paluru Ademma Vs. Achala Penchelu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad281; (1946)1MLJ87
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The dispute in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff relates to a ridge marked blue in the Commissioner's plan, Ex. D-1. It would be seen that it is situated between Section No. 236/1, which belongs to the plaintiff and Section No. 235/3 which belongs to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly found, on the basis of the evidence in the case supported by the Commissioner's reports and plans, that it is outside both the survey numbers. The plaintiff alleged that the ridge belonged in common to her and the defendant and she asked for a mandatory injunction that it should be restored to its original condition inasmuch as the same had been interfered with by the defendant by reducing its width as well as height. She pleaded that the ridge was being enjoyed in common between the two neighbouring owners for quite a long time. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff and the defendant were joint owners of the suit ridge and that the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gangavamsam Satyanarayana Vs. Routu Ramaswaminaidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad305; (1946)1MLJ129
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application made by the petitioner under the rules framed under Madras Act IV of 1938 for a declaration that the debt due by him to the respondent under a mortgage for Rs. 2,000 dated 8th April, 1911, was discharged under the provisions of that Act. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the exemption under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act applied to the case and that therefore there was no question of scaling down the debt. Hence this Civil Revision Petition.2. The bond of 1911 was executed by way of renewal of an earlier mortgage dated the 16th May, 1894, to the extent of Rs. 1,000 and for a further sum of Rs. 1,000 due under a compromise decree in O.S. No. 104 of 1903. The Court below in considering the applicability of Section 10(2)(i) to the case has based its conclusion exclusively upon the earlier bond of 1894 and made no reference whatever to the bond to which the provisions of the Act were soug...
Tag this Judgment!Chem Abbheong Represented by K.N.K. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. M.A. Pack ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad328; (1946)1MLJ222
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal has given rise to an interesting argument, but when the statutory provisions with which it is concerned are examined the decision does not present great difficulty.2. On the 27th August, 1938, the appellant, a Chinaman, carrying on business at Penang in the Federated Malay States, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Pattukottai, the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He had business dealings in Penang with one Sheik Ali, who was the assignee of a mortgage created on the 30th August, 1922 by the father of the first, second and third defendants. On the 23rd April, 1930, Sheik Ali left a will under which he bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff in satisfaction of money which he owed to him. The testator died on the 28th May, 1930. The suit was to enforce payment of the amount due under the mortgage of 30th August, 1922, the property covered by it being situate in the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff of...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal and Brother by Its Proprietor N. Venugopal Naicker and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad453; (1946)1MLJ241
N. Venugopal, J.1. The three defendants are the appellants. The facts are fairly simple. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant and the third defendant is their employee in their cloth shop. The plaintiff, who is a tailor, was plying his profession in a portion attached to that shop and he defaulted in the payment of rent. The first defendant filed a suit for the recovery of the rent and before judgment attached the sewing machine belonging to the plaintiff. The sewing machine, after attachment, was handed over to two sureties, who are the second and third defendants. It has been rightly found by the lower appellate Court that during the period when the machine was in the custody of the defendants the vital parts of the machine, namely, the bobbin, shuttle and needle, were removed and the machine being the sole means by which the plaintiff was earning his livelihood and it also being the tool of an artisan necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such, the atta...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raju Aiyar Vs. Gnanambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad419; (1946)1MLJ233
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant sued for a declaration that he was entitled to the village of Kothangudi as the adopted son of Kothandarama Ayyar and claimed possession in consequence of the death on 3rd January, 1943, of Nagammal, the daughter of Kothandarama Ayyar, to whom the property was given for life under Kothandarama Ayyar's will dated 13th March, 1905. The testator Kothandarama Ayyar died on the 25th April, 1905, leaving a widow and two daughters, Gnanarnbal, who is the first defendant and whose husband was then alive and Nagammal, who was a widow with a daughter who is the second defend ant. The main question in this appeal relates to the interpretation of Clause 13 of the will which runs as follows:The village of Kothangudi shall be enjoyed by Nagammal as stated in paragraph 5.The appellant contends that this merely indicates that Nagammal is to have a life interest. The respondents contend that this clause, by the reference to paragraph 5, imports the provisions in that parag...
Tag this Judgment!Suryadevara Annapurnamma Vs. Guntta Manikyamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad308; (1946)1MLJ108
Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by a daughter against her mother for a declaration that an adoption made by her mother was invalid because the adoption took place while she was living an unchaste life. The mother, defendant 1 in the suit, is the widow of one Somabrah mam, who died in the year 1911. He was also survived by a son. The son died two years after his father's death. The deceased left an estate of some 71/2 acres of land and Rs. 2000, moneys which he had lent out. His widow improved the estate and at the time of the suit it had incrased considerably in value. The daughter was married to one Venkatramayya. She and her husband lived with defendant 1, as also did defendant 1's a mother. The daughter has a son and it is quite clear that this suit is the result of the mother refusing to adopt her grandson. In 1937 the plaintiff and her husband quarrelled with defendant 1 with regard to the properties of the estate, They went so far as to turn defendant 1 out o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: D. Narasimha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad153; (1945)2MLJ585
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. Rule 39(1) (b) of the Traffic Rules runs thus : 'No person shall ride a cycle on any road in any other manner than on the saddle.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was riding not on the saddle but on the carrier behind the saddle and above the wheel. He is therefore guilty of the offence with which he has been charged.3. What is contended is that what was intended to be prohibited was the propulsion of the wheels by moving the pedal without sitting on the saddle. That also could be said to be prohibited as it is riding in any other manner but by sitting in any place without propelling the wheels. Etymologically, it will be correct to say that the man, who is sitting on the carrier and is carried on the cycle, is riding the cycle. But then he will not be riding it sitting on the saddle.4. The petitioner was rightly convicted and the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »