Chennai Court April 1946 Judgments
Chinnasami Thanjiroyar Vs. Pichai Maricar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad58; (1946)2MLJ141
Bell, J.1. This petition arises out of an order made by the District Munsiff of Tiruturaipundi inflicting a fine of Rs. 50 on the petitioner who had appeared as a wtiness for the plaintiff in a suit before him. The petitioner vainly appealed to the District Judge of East Tanjore. He therefore comes to this Court on the ground that the District Munsiff had no jurisdiction to impose a fine and that therefore the District Judge was wrong in confirming such an order.2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that in such a matter only one appeal is allowed and reference was made to Section 104(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section, however, refers to an order imposing a fine and made under the provisions of the Code. As I hold that the order was not made under any of the provisions of the Code and that the learned District Munsiff had no jurisdiction, this section does not apply and the objection must be overruled.3. The question is whether the District Muns...
Tag this Judgment!V.T. Elaya Pillai Vs. Ramasami Jadaya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad165; (1946)2MLJ373
Rajamannar, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 44 of 1944 in the District Court of South Arcot seeks to revise an order of the learned District Judge of South Arcot allowing an application for amendment (I.A. No. 169 of 1945) made by the respondent. The suit was not originally filed by the respondent but was filed by one Muthuswami Jadayya Koundar who was the holder of an impartible estate known as Jadaya Goundan Hills Jagir. The suit was inter alia for a declaration that a promissory note bearing date nth September, 1942, and a lease deed bearing date 16th September, 1942, obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff are not binding on or enforceable against the plaintiff. The ground on which this relief was sought was that the execution of the promissory note and the deed of lease was vitiated by coercion, undue influence and fraud. The original plaintiff died on 13th May, 1945, and the present respondent, one Ramaswami, his younger brother, was brought on record as his legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Dharba Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. National Insurance Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad51; (1946)2MLJ126
Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 26th October, 1914, Venkayya, the father of the appellants, insured his life with the respondent company under two policies, each for Rs. 2,000. On the 4th August, 1936, he borrowed from the respondent Rs. 1,500 on the security of the two policies. The surrender value then amounted to Rs. 1,700. iThe assured continued to pay the premiums until the 22nd March, 1938, when he defaulted. The result was that the respondent, under the terms of the contracts of insurance, converted each policy into a paid up policy for Rs. 1,782. This was on the 22nd September, 1939. By the month of August, 1940, Venkayya owed the respondent in respect of the loan granted to him, including interest more than the surrender value of the two policies. The indebtedness exceeded the surrender value by Rs. 210. The respondent called upon him to repay the loan or to reduce the amount outstanding to something below the surrender value. Venkayya did not comply with this demand and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Brahadeeswara Mudaliar Vs. Rajagopal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad71; (1946)2MLJ173
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the grandson of a dancing girl. He sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Palni for a decree fcr partition of bis grandmother's estate. He claimed a half share in the property by right of inheritance. The general rule of succession to the estate of a dancing girl is that the daughters are preferred to sons, her property being treated as stridhanam. In this case the plaintiff's grandmother had a son and a daughter. The plaintiff is the son of the son. Notwithstanding chat he had not pleaded that he was entitled to a half share in his grandmother's estate by reason of custom, the District Munsiff allowed evidence to be led in proof of custom and this in spite of the fact that he himself had refused to allow the plaint to be amanded by the inclusion therein of a plea of custom. The evidence which the plaintiff adduced on this question was that of a relation, two pipers from a temple in Palni and a weaver residing there. This evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Janaki Amma and anr. Vs. Thazhetheranjoli Kozhipra Raman Nair and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad532; (1946)2MLJ135
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals raise the same question, namely, whether the words 'child or children' in Section 19 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, refer only to a child or children of a marriage recognised by Section 4 or whether they include the offspring of a union which is not a marriage within the meaning of the section.2. The father of the appellants, Achuthan Nair, died on the 3rd October, 1935. The mother of the appellants died on the 25th August, 1929. The Union between the father and the mother was not registered under the Malabar Marriage Act, 1896. The father left properties which he had acquired in his own right. The appellants filed two suits in the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut to recover properties of which their father had died possessed. The defendants (the respondents in the appeal) were the karnavan and the senior members of the father's tarwad. Under the Marumakkattayam law, unamended by statute, the heirs to Achuthan Nair's...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lakshminarayanaperumalswami by Agent Appayyan Alias Muthukumaran C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad3; (1946)2MLJ123
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the trustee of the Sri Lakshminarayana Perumalswami temple at Pallapalayam in the Uudmalpet taluq. He was appointed to the office in 1933, displacing the first defendant. He sued in the Court of the D1strict Munsiff of Udumalpet for a declaration that a mortgage created by the first defendant of properties described in the plaint as items 1 and 2, that a sale by the first defendant of item 3 and a sale by the Court of item 4 were not binding on the trust and that he was entitled to recover possession from the alienees. The first and second items were mortgaged by the first defendant to the fourth defendant on the 12 th May, 1928. The first defendant had then been appointed the trustee. The property was mortgaged as belonging to the first defendant and his two brothers, who joined in the mortgage. Two days later the first defendant sold the third item to the fourth defendant, again treating the property as belonging to himself and his b...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naicker Vs. Balakrishna Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad47; (1946)2MLJ219
Yahya Ali, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 836 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Srivilliputtur, is the petitioner in this proceeding. That suit was brought by the plaintiff' represented by his next friend and it was a suit for partition after setting aside some alienations. In that suit the petitioner here, who is the father of the first respondent, was made the first defendant. The second defendant was his mother. The third defendant was his grandmother, and defendants 4 and 5 were the alienees. They are respectively respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this matter. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on the 9th April, 1932, and thereafter the suit was adjourned to 15th April, 1932 for the purpose of depositing Rs. 30 for payment to the Commissioner to be appointed to divide the property. No payment was made, and on 15th April, 1932 an order was passed by the Court saying that the case was 'closed'. The parties took no further steps in the matter; but on 14th ...
Tag this Judgment!Eangoli Krishnan Vs. Kuniyll Soopi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad274; (1947)1MLJ32
Yahya Ali, J.1. The first defendant in S.C.S. No. 118 of 1944, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tellicherry is the petitioner. On 10th November, 1932, a marupat, Ex. P-1, was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the first defendant and one Kannan. Kannan having died, defendants 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The instrument was for a period of 12 years. Though it was called a marupat, it was also a Kanom because properties were given as security. On 10th April, 1930, Ex. P-2, a melcharth was given of the suit and other properties, and on 8th November, 1940, under Ex. P-3, the melcharthdar, sixth defendant, assigned to the plaintiff the rents due from the lessee for the years 1938-39 and 1939-40. On the strength of the assignment, the plaintiff filed the suit, which has given rise to the revision petition, for arrears of rent in respect of these two years.2. Inter alia, a plea of limitation was raised, and it was contended that Article 110 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Banti Lakshmi Naidu (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Mantha Gumpa Someswararao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad88; (1946)2MLJ168
Somayya, J.1. The appellants are defendants in a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff-respondent. The main defence is that the defendants have permanent rights of occupancy. The suit land is an enfranchised pre-settlement minor inam and is not governed by the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. There is, in fact, no plea that occupancy rights have been obtained under the Madras Estates Land Act. The only question therefore is whether apart from the Act the defendants have proved that they have permanent right of occupancy, or, in other words, whether they are permanent lessees. They relied upon a number of documents to show that on some occasions the then owners of the plaint property expressly granted occupancy rights; but those documents have been found by the District Judge to be not genuine. The learned advocate for the appellants argues that this finding is not satisfactory. But I do not see any ground for interference in second appeal as this is a finding of fact. T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Patan Alli Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad248; (1946)2MLJ195
Horwill, J.1. In the Court of the Sessions Judge of Chittoor there were four accused. The first was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with the murder of one Bandi Ramalingappa. The other three were charged under the same section read with Section 109 of the Code with abetment of the murder. There was also a minor charge against the fourth accused of voluntarily causing hurt The first accused was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The second accused was found guilty of abetment of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. The third and fourth accused were acquitted. The first and second accused have appealed.2. It has been argued as a preliminary point that there was no legal conviction of the two appellants; because the judgment was written by a Judge having no jurisdiction to write the judgment and pronounced by a Judge who had not heard the evidence. The facts on which this argument is based are these: The evidence was recorded and arguments heard...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »