Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Vempati Satyanarayana Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad412; (1946)1MLJ458
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner filed a petition before the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri complaining that the counter-petitioners and their party had no right to recite Sankalpam at the tank at the Thirumalai hills at Tirupathi and that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. Instead of taking evidence and going into the matter the Joint Magistrate directed the police to warn the counter-petitioners not to create a breach of the peace by reciting such Sankalpams. The matter was taken in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor and he set aside the order of warning.2. I am not able to see what jurisdiction the first Court had to issue such a warning without taking evidence and deciding whether such a right was there or not. Nor has the learned Sessions Judge any jurisdiction to sit in revision over such an order and pass an order himself. If the order of the joint Magistrate was wrong, then the Sessions Judge should have written to this Court and asked t...
Earamalla Sanjamma Vs. Anna Sayanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad67; (1947)1MLJ252
Yahya Ali, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He owned a house which had been usufructuarily mortgaged to the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 170. A suit for the recovery of a money debt was filed by the first defendant against the plaintiff in the Panchayat Court of Cumbum and a decree was obtained. The decree was transferred for execution to the District Munsiff's Court of Markapur as the house belonging to the judgment-debtor was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. In the execution sale held on the 16th October, 1942, in E. P. No. 28 of 1942 the mortgagee second defendant purchased the house subject to his own mortgage for a sum of Rs. 155. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to set aside that Court sale on the ground that the decree was obtained by fraud and that there was also fraud in connection with the sale proceedings. The fraud that was alleged in connection with the decree was that although she had permanently ...
Mukkara Rudrappa Chetti Vs. the Karvetnagar Trust Estate, by Its Execu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ248
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a ryot cultivating a holding in the Karvetnagar Trust Estate in Tiruttani. Originally the land was suitable only for the raising of dry crops. The appellant is the tenant of an adjoining holding, which is in another Estate. Some ten years ago, he dug two wells on the adjoining holding and with water obtained therefrom, he grew wet crops on his holding in the Karvetnagar Trust Estate. It is common ground that it is customary for tenants of lands in that Estate to pay rent according to the nature of the crop raised. When a dry crop is raised the rent is lower than when a wet crop is grown. In faslis 1349, 1350, and 1351 the appellant grew paddy and the executive officer of the Estate sought to charge him with the customary rent on such a crop. The appellant objected, but in a suit filed by the executive officer in the Revenue Court, a decree for the higher rent was passed. The appellant appealed to the District Judge of Chittoor, who hel...
Puliyadi Rajagopala Aiyar Vs. Karuppiah Pandithan by This Authorised A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ392
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order in execution, disallowing to the appellant credit for public taxes, which, he alleges, he paid for the property in respect of which there was a redemption decree. The decree provides that the first defendant do pay to the plaintiff mesne profits at Rs. 65 per mensem from the date of the plaint, namely, 1st August, 1941. The public charges in the shape of taxes for the house property mortgaged were paid by the first defendant after the amount due under the decree was tendered. The Subordinate Judge has held that the first defendant was not entitled to credit for the public charges. He referred in this connection to Section 76, sub-clause (i) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. It was held in Subbarao v. Sarvarayudu (1922) 44 M.L.J. 534 : I.L.R. 47 Mad. 7, on the interpretation of the language of the sub-clause, as it stood prior to its amendment in 1929, that the position of a mortgagee after the tender could not be regarded a...
Murikipudi Ankamma Vs. Tummalacheruvu Narasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad127; (1946)2MLJ357
Yahya Ali, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1942, District Munsiff's Court, Gurzala, is the appellant in this appeal. K. Papayya who owned certain properties in Piduguralla and another village executed a deed of gift Ex. D-3 on 10th June, 1931, in favour of the 5th defendant, T. Hanumayya. It would appear that Papayya had a son who died and subsequently there was a partition between Papayya and his grandson and thereafter there was nobody to take care of him. He therefore took the 5th defendant Hanumayya to his house for the purpose of looking after him and assisting him in the management of the property. It is for this reason that the gift was made in favour of the 5th defendant who was closely related to the donor. It is the appellant's case that Hanumayya after a short stay with Papayya left Piduguralla and went back to his own native place Mallavolu and ceased to bestow any attention on Papayya or render him any assistance as expected. For this reason, it is alleged, Pap...
Mokshagundam Nagabhushanayya and ors. Vs. Pasam Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad444; (1946)1MLJ398
Alfred henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law. We consider that the correct opinion was expressed in the judgment under appeal.2. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land measuring 2.30 acres. In 1939 there were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the result of the inquiry the Magistrate held that the sixth defendant was in possession and passed an order under subsection (6) of the section. The order, which is dated the 16th January, 1939, was passed against defendants 1 to 5 alone. The plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings under Section 145. Defendants 1 to 5 filed an application in this Court, asking for revision of the Magistrate's order. This application was rejected in limine by an order dated the 15th August, 1939. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed on the 26th May, 1942. The plaintiff asked that possession be given to him and to his co-owners. A...
Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Beepattumma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad387; (1946)1MLJ400
Alfred henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These three appeals, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, all raise the same question, namely, whether in a case where rent is payable in kind and the landlord is suing to enforce payment he is entitled to take the market price ruling on the date of the institution of the suit or whether he must accept the price ruling on the date when the produce should have been delivered to him.2. Under the leases in suit the rents were payable in terms of paddy and were to be delivered at the granary of the landlord on the due date. The District Munsiff held that the landlord was entitled to the market price ruling on the dates when proceedings were instituted. On appeal by the tenants the Subordinate Judge held that the prices to be taken were those ruling when the rents fell due and with this view Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in second appeal agreed. These appeals-are from his judgment. The appeals have been heard together and can be dealt, with in one judgm...
Tarlada Krishna Rao and anr. Vs. Gonti Bairagi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad52; (1946)2MLJ85
Alfred Henry Lional Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a set-off can be pleaded in execution proceedings.2. In O.S. No. 41 of 1932 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore,. the appellants sued the respondents to enforce a mortgage. On the 28th March, 1935 they obtained a preliminary decree for the payment of Rs. 6,539-4-0. On the 5th December, 1938 a final decree was passed for the same amount. The respondents then applied under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act for the scaling down of the decree. On the 21st September, 1939, they obtained an order scaling down the decree to Rs. 2,581-7-0.3. The properties mortgaged consisted of agricultural lands which the respondents had leased to tenants. On the 16th April, 1934, that is, before the preliminary decree was passed, the appellants applied for the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents due. The tenants refused to attorn to the receiver and the 6nly course open to him was to file...
D. Narayana Singh Vs. Nalluri Seetharatnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad415; (1946)1MLJ435
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the complainant in C.C.No. 50 of 1944 on the file of the Joint Magistrate of Bezwada. He filed a complaint for cheating against one Sitaratnamma, an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. His case was that the accused took jewels from his wife representing that they were required for taking the photograph of girl who was about to be married and that the jewels were given to her but not returned subsequently though she was requested to return the same. Anumber of witnesses were cited and it was stated that three persons were given to her but not returned subsequently though she was requested to return the same. A number of witness were cited and it was stated that three persons were present at the time of the delivery of the jewels. The Magistrate took evidence and also examined a Court witness but passed an order of the jewels to the accused. He discussed the evidence and passed an order discharging the accused under S...
Venkata Seshavatharam and Others Vs. Chapalamadugu Venkata Rangayya an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR722(Mad)
ORDERPATANJALI SASTRI, J. - One of the questions raised in this appeal is whether the defendants were agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The plaintiffs who are the appellants here claimed that the defendants were disqualified from claiming the status of an agriculturist under the Act by reason of their having been assessed to income-tax during the period specified in proviso A to Section 3, clause (ii), of the Act, that is to say, in either of the two financial years ending 31st March, 1938. It has been held by this Court in Rajoo v. Palaniappa Chettiar, that the disqualifying assessments must have been made not for the two financial years mentioned in the proviso, but must have been made in either of those years, as the assessments for any year need not necessarily be made in that year under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In order to establish the disqualification the plaintiffs filed Ex. P-6, a memorandum granted by the Collector of Kis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »