Chennai Court January 1946 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.
Vajapeyajula Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Ragadamilli Viraswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ291
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The facts in this case are complicated, but they are not in dispute. The contest is with regard to their effect in law.2. At all times material to the suit out of which the appeal arises the second defendant and defendants 3 to 8 jointly held as landholders within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act certain lanka lands measuring 217.32 acres. It was agreed between these defendants that the second defendant should have the right of managing the lands in faslis ending with an even number and that defendants 3; to 8 should have the same right in faslis ending in an odd number. In fasli 1344 (1st July, 1934 to 30th June, 1935) the first plaintiff was the tenant of the lands and it being an even fasli the second defendant was lawfully in charge of them. The first plaintiff failed to pay the rent due for that year and on the 2nd June, 1936, the second defendant started proceedings under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which he had then the...
Vajapayajula Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Regadimilli Veeraswami and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad461
Leach, C.J.1. The facts in this case are complicated, but they are not in dispute. The contest is with regard to their effect in law. At all times material to the suit out of which this appeal arises defendant 2 and defendants 3 to 8 jointly held as landholders within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act certain lanka lands measuring 217.32 acres. It was agreed between these defendants that defendant 2 should have the right of managing the lands in faslis ending with an even number and that defendants 3 to 8 should have the same right in faslis ending in an odd number. In fasli 1344 (1st July 1934 to 30th June 1935) plaintiff 1 was the tenant of the lands and it being an even fasli defendant 2 was lawfully in charge of them. Plaintiff 1 failed to pay the rent due for that year and on 2nd June 1936 defendant 2 started proceedings under Section 112, Madras Estates Land Act, which he had then the right to do. The amount due by plaintiff 1 in respect of rent was Rupees 993-12-0. On 3...
In Re: Kunju Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad496; (1946)1MLJ372
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the joint Magistrate of Pollachi for an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the facts alleged did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 409 and accordingly acquitted the petitioner but directed that the papers be sent to the lower Court for a charge being framed' under Section 420 and evidence being let in. It is urged before me that the proceedings should be quashed in view of the provisions of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of that section runs thus:A person who has been once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have...
Y.A.A.V.R. Sethuraman Chettiar Vs. K.K.R.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad437; (1946)1MLJ373
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond executed on 30th March, 1937, by one Y.A. RM. Veerappa Chetti in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.2. One Y.A.A.R. Veerappa Chetti (who will be referred to as the deceased Veerappa Chetti) died without issue on the 12th March, 1937. Y.A. RM. Veerappa Chetti who was a near pangali of the deceased Veerappa Chetti instituted a suit for recovery of the properties pertaining to the estate of the deceased Veerappa from the defendant, appellant herein, who claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased Veerappa. The suit was filed soon after the death of the deceased Veerappa, but as the claimant Veerappa did not have sufficient funds for the conduct of the litigation he sought to assistance of the respondent who agreed to advance Rs. 10,000 in the first instance and further sums later on if required and in pursuance of that agreement the claimant Veerappa executed the suit mortgage Ex. P-I in favour of the res...
Vennety Satyanarayana Vs. Pydimarri Satyanarayana, Managing Director o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ135
Byers, J.1. It follows from what has been said by Mockett, J., in Moothaliandam Chetty v. Venkatesam Chetty : AIR1945Mad386 that the law applicable to the plaintiff's suit for eviction was the House Rent Control Order as it stood in its unamended form at the time of the institution of the suit in April, 1944. The amendment of Section 7-A in July, is said to have taken away from the plaintiff the right to get a decree in eviction; but with all due respect to the learned Judge who decided the case in Mahmood v. The Kerala Corporation, Ltd. : AIR1945Mad181 . I think the learned District Judge was wrong in his view that the right of the plaintiff to get a decree for eviction was in any way affected. The Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (bb) of Sub-rule (2) to Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules which have been delegated by the Central Government to the Provincial Government and the rule contemplates an order to provide inter ...
In Re: N. Ramarathnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad349; (1946)1MLJ237
ORDERKuppaswami Ayyar, J.1. It is urged for the petitioners that there are various considerations which have to be borne in mind by the Chief Presidency Magistrate before deciding whether he should himself try a case of sedition or should commit it to this Court for being tried with the aid of a jury and that the Magistrate has not dealt with or considered them before passing the order sought to be revised. In the petition filed before the Magistrate, the main point urged was that the offending article being in Tamil, it would be conducive to the ends of justice if the case is to be tried by a jury, a majority of whom would be in a position to decide whether the article was one that would bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the Government. He has not specifically dealt with this but merely stated that since most of the cases under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code would be of the same nature as the case before him and since the law has ...
K.P.Rm. Kuppan Chettiar Alias Kadiresan Chettiar Vs. Sp.R.M.Rm. Ramasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ383
Somayya, J.1. Plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 17 of 1943. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 8,685 with further interest and costs from the first respondent Ramaswami Chettiar. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court and hence this appeal.2. In order to understand the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to set out a fairly long history. The appellant's mother's brother is the first respondent. The second respondent Somasundara is the first respondent's wife's brother. The family of the first respondent were the melvaramdars of the village of Pappankulam and Ex. P-I series are certain promissory notes executed by the ryots of that village in the name of the first respondent's father and Meyyappa who is the elder brother of the first respondent. In 1910 a mortgage was taken in the name of the appellant's father Raman Chetti in discharge of Ex. P-1 series and that was for the benefit of the first respondent's family. N...
Vennety Satyanarayana Vs. Pydimarri Satyanarayana, Managing Director o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad320
Byers, J.1. It follows from what has been said by Mockett J. in Moothaliandam Chetty v. Venkatesam Chetti A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 388 that the law applicable to the plaintiff's suit for eviction was the House Rent Control Order as it stood in its unamended form at the time of the institution of the suit in April 1944. The amendment of Section 7-A in July is said to have taken away from the plain, tiff the right to get a decree in eviction; but with all due respect to the learned Judge who decided the Case in H.Y. Mahmood v. Kerala Corporation A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 181. I think the learned District Judge was wrong in his view that the right of the plaintiff to get a decree for eviction was in any way affected. The Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (bb) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, which have been delegated by the Central Government to the Provincial Government, and the rule contemplates an order to provide inter al...
K.P. Rm. Kuppan Chettiar Alias Kadiresan Chettiar Vs. Sp. R.M. Rm. Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad472
Somayya, J.1. Plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 17 of 1943. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 8685 with further interest and costs from respondent 1 Ramaswami Chettiar. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court and hence this appeal. In order to understand the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to set out a fairly long history. The appellant's mother's brother is respondent 1. Respondent 2, Somasundara, is respondent 1's wife's brother. The family of respondent 1 were the melvaramdars of the village of Pappankulam and Ex. p-1 series are certain promissory notes executed by the ryots of that village in the name of respondent 1's father and Meyyappa who is the elder brother of respondent 1. In 1910 a mortgage was taken in the name of the appellant's father Raman Chetti in discharge of Ex. P-1 series and that was for the benefit of respondent 1's family. No money was paid by the mortgagee to respondent 1's father or to h...
Mutyala Venkatramayya Vs. Tanguturi Venkatasubbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad351; (1946)1MLJ271
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant in the appeal who is also the petitioner in the civil revision petition was a debtor who applied to the Court of the District Munsiff of Bhimavaram for relief under the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938. The application was dismissed on a legal ground and as there was then no right of appeal under the Act, the debtor moved this Court in revision. By the time the revision petition came to be heard here, Madras Act IV of 1938, had been amended and a right of appeal had been given under the new Section 25-A which provides that an order of the kind by which the petitioner was aggrieved should be subject to anneal as if it was an order falling under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code ' The revision petition having been rejected on the ground that an appeal lay the debtor moved the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur to excuse the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to admit an appeal against the original order to the District Munsiff. The learned Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »