Chennai Court November 1946 Judgments
In Re: Palli Munisami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ17
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate, Chittoor, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following circumstances. Two persons were tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tirupathi, in C.C. No. 813 of 1946 for offences of theft and receiving stolen property. The first accused, P. Munisami, aged 18 years, was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate under Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the theft of a gramophone and a wireless set from the Military Stores, Renigunta. The second accused Krishniah was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly received those two articles knowing them to be stolen. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate after convicting the two accused considered that the first accused being a first offender and an adolescent should be dealt with under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that view he forwarded the proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Padarty Balayya Vs. Darapureddi Parvateeswararao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad271; (1947)1MLJ85
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff decree-holder is the appellant, and the appeal is against an order dismissing his petition for executing the decree against defendants 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 61 of 1932, on the file of the District Court, Ellore. The suit was filed, not only against the father, the first defendant, but also against his sons in respect of money due on a promissory note. A decree was passed not only against the father but against the sons defendants 2 to 4 also as against the joint family property in their hands. The decree was passed on the 28th August, 1933. The execution petition was filed against defendants 2 to 4 only and against defendants 5 and 6 who were born subsequent to the decree in the suit and who were added in their individual capacity in the execution proceedings. The first execution petition, E.P. No. 24 of 1934, was filed against the father and sons on the 6th January, 1934, and it was struck off on the 1st March, 1936, for want of bidders. On the 15th D...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Ananthanarayana Swami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ142
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal was heard by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in the first instance and was referred by the learned Judge to a Division Bench as an important question of law was raised and the point is not covered by any direct authority.2. One Pal Kangani, the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal obtained a preliminary decree for sale on a deed of simple mortgage executed by one Natesa Goundan, the appellant's deceased husband on the 11th October, 1924. The decree was passed on the 14th February, 1933, by the District Munsiff of Turaiyur in O.S. No. 5 of 1933. The final decree tallowed on the 9th January, 1934. During the pendency of that suit Natesa Goundan's sister, Mookayi, brought a suit against the appellant as the widow and representative of Natesa Goundan for a declaration of her title to certain properties including the properties mortgaged by Natesa and for other consequential relief. The mortgagee was impleaded as the second defendant in t...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Venkata Reddi, Minor Represented by His Guardian and Mother, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad354; (1947)1MLJ188
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant, a minor, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, to reopen a prior partition effected between his father's branch and three other branches of the family and he also prayed for a declaration that the compromise decree for partition in O.S. No. 66 of 1938 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chittoor, was not binding on him as he was not impleaded in that suit. The appellant was born on the 7th Sebruary, 1940. The family to which he belongs consisted originally of two sons of one Chcwdi Reddi (one of these sons was the appellant's great grandfather, Sidda Reddi). The other son was Thimma Reddi, who had three sons, each of whom is now represented by his descendants. We are therefore concerned with a family consisting of four branches, that to which the plaintiff belongs being entitled under the ordinary Hindu Law, to a half share in all the properties. It was, however, alleged that the properties of the family had been largely increased by...
Tag this Judgment!Sathi Perireddi and ors. Vs. Selagasetti Venkatraju, Being Minor by Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ87
Govindarajachari, J.1. These civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of O.S. No. 302 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram the properties comprised in which were originally owned by one Savarala Ramanna, who is referred to hereinafter as Ramanna senior. Ramanna senior died in 1892 leaving a widow, Gangamma who died in 1913 and a daughter Venkayamma, who died in 1914. The first defendant is the son of Venkayamma. Ramanna senior is alleged to have adopted his sister's son's son, one Kola Ramanna herein-after referred to as Ramanna junior. Ramanna junior died in 1917 leaving a widow, Ammanna, who died on 26th May, 1938, and a daughter Gangamma, who-died on 18th July, 1938. The plaintiff is the son of Gangamma. The second defendant is the brother of Ramanna junior in his aurasa family. The third defendant is the plaintiff's father's father. The fourth defendant is not related to the plaintiff or defendants 1 to 3. He claims some of the properties in suit part...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisha Bi Bi Vs. Muhammad Sadakathulla Marcair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ208
Wadsworth, J.1. All these three matters arise out of an order in appeal from the decision in O.S. No., 391 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, which was a suit for partition and possession of the share of the widow in the estate of one Khadirsa Maracair. The total value of the estate was approximately Rs. 41,000, in which the plaintiff's share was just under Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,979-10-2, treating it as a suit for partition. The suit was decreed in part and an appeal was preferred to the District Court of South Arcot, but was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The respondents took a preliminary objection that the suit filed as a suit for partition was, in substance, a suit for administration of the estate of the deceased Khadirsa Maracair and should have been valued on the total value of the estate. Accepting this contention and relying on the decision of King, J., in Khadir ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayanaswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ364
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules for violating Clause 12 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1942, which prescribes that no person shall carry on business as a retail dealer unless he has been registered as such under the Kerosene Control Order by the Collector having jurisdiction over the place where the retail dealer carries on business. A dealer has been defined in the Control Order itself as a person dealing in the purchase, sale or distribution of kerosene. In the present case the only evidence is that the petitioner conducted a solitary transaction of sale of one tin of kerosene but that does not constitute him a retailer nor does it constitute the transaction a business to amount to his carrying on business as retail dealer within the meaning of Clause 12. Carrying on a business always connotes conducting of more transactions than one by way of trade or commerce and the concept of dealer also has in...
Tag this Judgment!Sathi Perireddi and ors. Vs. Selagasetti Venkatraju Being Minor by Nex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad158
Govindarajachari, J.1. These civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of O.S. No. 302 of 19391 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapuram the properties comprised in which were originally owned by one Savarala Ramanna, who is referred to hereinafter as Ramanna senior. Ramanna senior died in 1892 leaving a widow, Gangamma who died in 1913 and a daughter Venkayamma who died in 1914. Defendant 1 is the son of Venkayamma. Ramanna senior is alleged to have adopted his sister's son's son, one Kola Ramanna hereinafter referred to as Ramanna junior. Ramanna. junior died in 1917 leaving a widow, Ammanna who died on 26th JMay 1938, and a daughter Gangamma who died on 18th July 1938. The plaintiff is the son of Gangamma. Defendant 2 is the brother of Ramanna junior in his aurasa family. Defendant 3 is the plaintiff's father's father. Defendant 4 is not related to the plaintiff or defendants 1 to 8. He claims some of the properties in suit partly under a conveyance executed by Amma...
Tag this Judgment!R. Raghavachariar Vs. M.V. Kandaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad393; (1947)1MLJ105
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the point of law involved in this Letters Patent Appeal the facts must be stated fully.2. On the 27th November, 1925, defendants 1 to 6, members of a joint family, mortgaged certain immoveable properties to the plaintiff to secure a sum of Rs. 7,000. The properties covered by the mortgage comprised a rice godown in Madras and agricultural lands in a village in the Chingleput district. Under a separate deed executed on the same date other properties belonging to the family were mortgaged to the plaintiff to secure a sum of Rs. 11,000. We will refer to the mortgage for Rs. 7,000 as 'mortgage A' and the mortgage for Rs. 11,000 as 'mortgage B.' On the 7th May, 1933, there was due under mortgage A the sum of Rs. 5,596-4-0. On that date the mortgagors conveyed to the mortgagee the agricultural lands comprised in mortgage A for Rs, 7,000, which was satisfied to the extent of Rs. 6,446 by partial discharge of both the mortgages.3. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Odayar and ors. Vs. Asan Muhammad Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad276; (1947)1MLJ83
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the Civil Court or the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to decide the questions raised in the plaint.2. The properties in suit originally formed part of the Tanjore Palace Estate. In Original Suit No. 3 of 1919 of the District Court of West Tanjore the lands with other properties were allotted to one Vasudeva Sahib, a member of the family. The suit took the form of an interpleader action, but it was in effect a suit for partition. There was an appeal to this Court from the decree of the trial Court. The judgment of this Court was delivered on the 24th January, 1924. It was to the effect that Vasudeva Sahib had received more than his proper share in the estate. Consequently the Court modified the decree of the District Court. Restitution proceedings followed and resulted in the sale of the properties in suit to the first defendant on the 23rd December, 1938.3. It is the plaintiffs' case that the properties with which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »